Ming Zhang wrote:
as Ross pointed out, many io pattern only have 1 outstanding io at any
time, so there is only one work thread actively to serve it. so it can
not exploit the multiple core here.
you see 100% at nullio or fileio? with disk, most time should spend on
iowait and cpu utilization
So,
Is it time to start thinking about deprecating the old 0.9, 1.0 and
1.1 formats to just standardize on the 1.2 format? What are the
issues surrounding this?
It's certainly easy enough to change mdadm to default to the 1.2
format and to require a --force switch to allow use of the older
Ming Zhang wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 09:48 +0200, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
I can format serveral times (mkfs.ext3) a 1.5 TB volume
over iSCSI
without any trouble. I can read and write on this virtual
disk without
any
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 13:05 -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
I'm sure an internal bitmap would. On RAID1 arrays, reads/writes are
never split up by a chunk size for stripes. A 2mb read is a single
read, where as on a raid4/5/6 array, a 2mb read will end
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 01:04 -0700, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
I run for 12 hours some dd's (read and write in nullio)
between
initiator and target without any disconnection. Thus iSCSI code seems
to
be robust. Both initiator and target are alone on
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 01:04 -0700, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
I run for 12 hours some dd's (read and write in nullio)
between
initiator and target without any disconnection. Thus iSCSI code seems
to
be robust. Both initiator
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 02:39:47PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
And if putting the superblock at the end is problematic, why is it the
default? Shouldn't version 1.1 be the default?
In my opinion, having the superblock *only* at the end (e.g. the 0.90
format) is the best option.
It allows one
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 23:04 +0200, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 01:04 -0700, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
I run for 12 hours some dd's (read and write in nullio)
between
initiator
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 01:04 -0700, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
I run for 12 hours some dd's (read and write in nullio)
between
initiator and
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 14:04 -0700, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Sorry for this last mail. I have found another mistake, but I
don't
know if this bug comes from iscsi-target or raid5 itself. iSCSI target
is disconnected because istd1 and md_d0_raid5 kernel threads use 100%
of
CPU each !
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Sorry for this last mail. I have found another mistake, but I
don't know if this bug comes from iscsi-target or raid5 itself. iSCSI
target is disconnected because istd1 and md_d0_raid5 kernel threads
use 100% of CPU each !
Tasks: 235 total, 6 running, 227
On 10/19/07, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday October 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm using a stock 2.6.19.7 that I then backported various MD fixes to
from 2.6.20 - 2.6.23... this kernel has worked great until I
attempted v1.0 sb w/ bitmap=internal using mdadm 2.6.x.
Bill Davidsen wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Sorry for this last mail. I have found another mistake, but I
don't know if this bug comes from iscsi-target or raid5 itself. iSCSI
target is disconnected because istd1 and md_d0_raid5 kernel threads
use 100% of CPU each !
Tasks: 235 total,
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 23:23 +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 02:39:47PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
And if putting the superblock at the end is problematic, why is it the
default? Shouldn't version 1.1 be the default?
In my opinion, having the superblock *only* at the end
[snip]
I am unsure why you would want to setup an iSCSI RAID1, but before
doing so I would try to verify that each independant iSCSI session
is bullet proof.
I use one and only one iSCSI session. Raid1 array is built between a
local and iSCSI volume.
So you only get this
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 01:04 -0700, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
I run for 12 hours some dd's (read and write in nullio)
between
initiator and target without any
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 12:38 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
1, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2
Use the new version-1 format superblock. This has few restrictions.
The different sub-versions store the superblock at different locations
on the device, either at the end (for 1.0), at the start
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 12:45 -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, John Stoffel wrote:
Justin == Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Justin Is a bitmap created by default with 1.x? I remember seeing
Justin reports of 15-30%
Justin == Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Justin Is a bitmap created by default with 1.x? I remember seeing
Justin reports of 15-30% performance degradation using a bitmap on a
Justin RAID5 with 1.x.
Not according to the mdadm man page. I'd probably give up that
performance if it
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, John Stoffel wrote:
Doug == Doug Ledford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Doug On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 11:46 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
Justin == Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Justin On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, John Stoffel wrote:
So,
Is it time to start thinking
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 11:46 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
Justin == Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Justin On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, John Stoffel wrote:
So,
Is it time to start thinking about deprecating the old 0.9, 1.0 and
1.1 formats to just
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, John Stoffel wrote:
Justin == Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Justin On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, John Stoffel wrote:
So,
Is it time to start thinking about deprecating the old 0.9, 1.0 and
1.1 formats to just standardize on the 1.2 format? What are the
issues
Justin == Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Justin On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, John Stoffel wrote:
So,
Is it time to start thinking about deprecating the old 0.9, 1.0 and
1.1 formats to just standardize on the 1.2 format? What are the
issues surrounding this?
It's certainly easy
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, John Stoffel wrote:
So,
Is it time to start thinking about deprecating the old 0.9, 1.0 and
1.1 formats to just standardize on the 1.2 format? What are the
issues surrounding this?
It's certainly easy enough to change mdadm to default to the 1.2
format and to require
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Alberto Alonso wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 17:26 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Mike Accetta [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I would like to see is a timeout driven fallback mechanism. If
one mirror does not return the requested data within a certain time
(say 1
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 16:47 +0200, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Ming Zhang wrote:
as Ross pointed out, many io pattern only have 1 outstanding io at any
time, so there is only one work thread actively to serve it. so it can
not exploit the multiple core here.
you see 100% at nullio or
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 09:48 +0200, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
I can format serveral times (mkfs.ext3) a 1.5 TB volume
over iSCSI
without any trouble. I can read and write on this virtual
disk without
any trouble.
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Dan Williams wrote:
I found a problem which may lead to the operations count dropping
below zero. If ops_complete_biofill() gets preempted in between the
following calls:
raid5.c:554 clear_bit(STRIPE_OP_BIOFILL, sh-ops.ack);
raid5.c:555 clear_bit(STRIPE_OP_BIOFILL,
I am pleased to announce the availability of
mdadm version 2.6.4
It is available at the usual places:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~neilb/source/mdadm/
and
countrycode=xx.
http://www.${countrycode}kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/raid/mdadm/
and via git at
git://neil.brown.name/mdadm
Doug == Doug Ledford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Doug On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 12:38 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
1, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2
Use the new version-1 format superblock. This has few restrictions.
The different sub-versions store the superblock at different locations
on the device, either at
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, John Stoffel wrote:
Justin == Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Justin Is a bitmap created by default with 1.x? I remember seeing
Justin reports of 15-30% performance degradation using a bitmap on a
Justin RAID5 with 1.x.
Not according to the mdadm man page.
Doug == Doug Ledford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Doug On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 11:46 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
Justin == Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Justin On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, John Stoffel wrote:
So,
Is it time to start thinking about deprecating the old 0.9, 1.0 and
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 11:46 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
Justin == Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Justin On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, John Stoffel wrote:
So,
Is it time to start thinking about deprecating the old 0.9, 1.0 and
1.1 formats to just standardize on the 1.2 format?
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 16:30 +0200, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Ming Zhang wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 09:48 +0200, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
I can format serveral times (mkfs.ext3) a 1.5 TB volume
over iSCSI
without any
Ming Zhang wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 16:30 +0200, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Ming Zhang wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 09:48 +0200, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
I can format serveral times (mkfs.ext3) a 1.5 TB volume
Hello Dan,
I have a suggestion regarding the async_tx_find_channel() procedure.
First, a little introduction. Some processors (e.g. ppc440spe) have several DMA
engines (say DMA1 and DMA2) which are capable of performing the same type of
operation, say XOR. The DMA2 engine may process the
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
I can format serveral times (mkfs.ext3) a 1.5 TB volume
over iSCSI
without any trouble. I can read and write on this virtual
disk without
any trouble.
Now, I have configured ietd with :
Lun 0
On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 17:26 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Mike Accetta [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I would like to see is a timeout driven fallback mechanism. If
one mirror does not return the requested data within a certain time
(say 1 second) then the request should be duplicated on
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 01:04 -0700, BERTRAND Joël wrote:
I never see any oops with this patch. But I cannot create a
RAID1 array
with a local RAID5 volume and a foreign RAID5 array exported by iSCSI.
iSCSI seems to works fine, but RAID1 creation randomly aborts due to a
unknown SCSI
Doug Ledford wrote:
course, this comes at the expense of peak throughput on the device.
Let's say you were building a mondo movie server, where you were
streaming out digital movie files. In that case, you very well may care
more about throughput than seek performance since I suspect you
40 matches
Mail list logo
