Re: Linux Software RAID Bitmap Question

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Neil Brown wrote: On Sunday February 25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe Neil stated that using bitmaps does incur a 10% performance penalty. If one's box never (or rarely) crashes, is a bitmap needed? I think I said it can incur such a penalty. The actual cost

Re: Linux Software RAID Bitmap Question

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, dean gaudet wrote: On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Neil Brown wrote: On Sunday February 25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe Neil stated that using bitmaps does incur a 10% performance penalty. If one's box never (or rarely) crashes, is a bitmap needed? I think I said it can

Re: trouble creating array

So anyways, I created my RAID device, and waited about 4 hours for it to sync, and all was happy with the world, so I went to bed. This morning, I made an ext3 file system on it, set up some directories, set the acls, added to my smb.conf file, mapped a drive, and after about 4Gb copied onto

RE: DMRAID feature direction?

Thanks for the archive link, very interesting discussions with EMD... What was the final outcome with EMD? Is it still a valid project? We would like to start helping with RAID feature enhancements, but we need to maintain support vendor specific metadata. What is the best way to approach

RE: DMRAID feature direction?

On Wednesday February 28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the archive link, very interesting discussions with EMD... What was the final outcome with EMD? Is it still a valid project? We would like to start helping with RAID feature enhancements, but we need to maintain support vendor

Re: end to end error recovery musings

Martin K. Petersen wrote: Alan == Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not sure you're up-to-date on the T10 data integrity feature. Essentially it's an extension of the 520 byte sectors common in disk [...] Alan but here's a minor bit of passing bad news - quite a few older Alan ATA

RE: end to end error recovery musings

On Tuesday, February 27, 2007 12:07 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: Not sure you're up-to-date on the T10 data integrity feature. Essentially it's an extension of the 520 byte sectors common in disk arrays. For each 512 byte sector (or 4KB ditto) you get 8 bytes of protection data. There's

Re: end to end error recovery musings

Doug == Douglas Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Doug Work on SAT-2 is now underway and one of the agenda items is Doug end to end data protection and is in the hands of the t13 Doug ATA8-ACS technical editor. So it looks like data integrity is on Doug the radar in the SATA world. It's cool

Re: end to end error recovery musings

On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 12:16 -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: It's cool that it's on the radar in terms of the protocol. That doesn't mean that drive manufacturers are going to implement it, though. The ones I've talked to were unwilling to sacrifice capacity because that's the main

Re: end to end error recovery musings

James == James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: James However, I could see the SATA manufacturers selling capacity at James 512 (or the new 4096) sectors but allowing their OEMs to James reformat them 520 (or 4160) 4104. It's 8 bytes per hardware sector. At least for T10... -- Martin K.

Re: end to end error recovery musings

On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 12:42 -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: 4104. It's 8 bytes per hardware sector. At least for T10... Er ... that won't look good to the 512 ATA compatibility remapping ... James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a

Re: end to end error recovery musings

James Bottomley wrote: On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 12:42 -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: 4104. It's 8 bytes per hardware sector. At least for T10... Er ... that won't look good to the 512 ATA compatibility remapping ... Well, in that case you'd only see 8x512 data bytes, no metadata...