On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 11:23 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
This patch set is a step towards enabling hardware offload in the
md-raid5 driver. These patches are considered experimental and are not
yet suitable for production environments.
As mentioned, this patch set is the first step in that it
Yesterday evening I initialized a new RAID5, waited for completion and
shut down the machine. Yet when I restarted it this morning it
immediately began with a resync -- it seems that it wants to resync on
every boot ...
This is a new Debian testing installation, array was created with EVMS
and
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 06:03:01PM -0700, Tim wrote:
Your UPS won't accept a timer value to wait before actually cutting
power?
Unfortunately my UPS des not!
--
Niccolo Rigacci
Firenze - Italy
Iraq, missione di pace: 38725 morti - www.iraqbodycount.net
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 02:00:09PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
With 2.6,
killall -9 md0_raid1
should do the trick (assuming root is on /dev/md0. If it is elsewhere,
choose a different process name).
Thanks, this is what I was looking for!
I will try remounting read-only and killing the
[...] it seems that it wants to resync on every boot ...
Update:
- During shutdown I got a few errors on the console regarding arrays
that couldn't be stopped, because the mdadm package in Debian tries to
shut down all arrays, even if it is set not to autostart any -- will
file bug.
- The
Gordon Henderson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Christian Pernegger wrote:
I also subscribe to the almost commodity hardware philosophy,
however I've not been able to find a case that comfortably takes even
8 drives. (The Stacker is an absolute nightmare ...) Even most
rackable cases stop at
Niccolo Rigacci wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 02:00:09PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
With 2.6,
killall -9 md0_raid1
should do the trick (assuming root is on /dev/md0. If it is elsewhere,
choose a different process name).
Thanks, this is what I was looking for!
I will try
Hi,
since using work queues involve more context switches than doing things
inline... have you measured the performance impact of your changes? If
so... was there any impact that you could measure, and how big was that?
Greetings,
Arjan van de Ven
Good point. Especially on ARM
Minor refresh to make 'biofill' go through a test_and_clear_bit check
before performing the copy. Which is important for the hardware offload
implementation where operations might need to be retried until DMA
resources are available.
-
This patch moves the data copying portion of
Refresh to apply on top the new version of [PATCH 004 of 006].
---
This patch modifies handle_write_operations5() to handle the parity
calculation request made by the reshape code. However this patch does
not move the copy operation associated with an expand to the work queue.
First, it
Looks impossible UPS design to me. May I ask what UPS do you use?
My APC smart UPS does has a timer, so PC can send command shut the UPS down
after 30 seconds and then shutdown itself.
--
View this message in context:
On Thursday June 29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why should this trickery be needed? When an array is mounted r/o it
should be clean. How can it be dirty. I assume readonly implies noatime,
I mount physically readonly devices without explicitly saying noatime
and nothing whines.
The
12 matches
Mail list logo
