, but hopefully the error is logged
somewhere. Other than as a SMART relocate?
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body o
order not preserved.
Battery backed cache doesn't prevect failures between the cache and the
platter.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lin
doesn't do anything special about getting it
onto the media.
My impression is that the sync will return when the i/o has been
delivered to the device, and will get special treatment by the elevator
code (I looked quickly, more is needed). I'm sore someone will tell me
if I misread
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On May 31 2007 09:00, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Hardly, with all the Fedora specific cruft. Anyway, there was a
simple patch posted in RH bugzilla, so I've gone with that.
I'm not sure what Fedora has to do with it,
I like highly modularized systems
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Thu, May 31 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Thu, May 31 2007, David Chinner wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 08:26:45AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Thu, May 31 2007, David Chinner wrote:
IOWs, there are two
s, since I just proposed
a project which uses one? :-(
I think the goal is good, more choice is almost always better choice, I
just want to be sure there won't be big disk performance regressions.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On May 30 2007 16:35, Bill Davidsen wrote:
On 29 May 2007, Jan Engelhardt uttered the following:
from your post at
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-raid@vger.kernel.org/msg07384.html I
read that autodetecting arrays with a 1.x superblock is currently
impossible
er only at
the transfer rate from the file to memory, which did not change
significantly from 1..N threads active, where N was the number of
mirrors. And RAID-10 did as well with one thread as several.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things
all barrier
guarantees.
Pretty much agrees with what I said above, it's at a level closer to the
device, and status should come back from the physical i/o request.
For 'iscsi', I guess it works just the same as SCSI...
Hopefully.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED
assume a
1.x sb? There are some 'broken' distros out there that still don't use
mdadm in initramfs, and recreating the initramfs each time is a bit
cumbersome...
The kernel build system should be able to do that for you, shouldn't it?
That would be an improvement, ye
on't think I can do that,
but if someone wants to assure me that it can be done and point me to
documentation, I'll be grateful.
I have a LOT of partial sets of this data in the field in DVD, same
requirement, I can't replace them, they have to work as is.
--
bill davidsen <
blem, and (b) if someone else doesn't point you to an existing
document or old post on the topic. Oh, you could also try mounting the
filesystem as etc2, assuming that it's ext3 now. I wouldn't run that
way, but it's useful as a diagnostic tool.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL
en care of, rather than have code in each f/s to cope
with odd behavior.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body
commons license
statement would be useful to clarify what is fair use. That allows
others to use it for free projects, but you would still control
commercial use.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsub
x27;s] failed drives have shown no SMART error
signals whatsoever."
Having covered that in a presentation to a user group related to SMART.
may I offer a paraphrase which may be more obvious to people who are not
native speakers of English:
High counts of some SMART parameters indicate
ribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent th
reported a hard crash using nbd.
Test it well, but it's the ideal solution, combined with a bitmap, for
getting in sync.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: se
ing etc. Can you collect and post
those. Both for the failing case (2*5.5T) and the working case
(4*2.55T) is possible.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line &quo
ry" mode
where the
md layer tests the data that has been written. Even if this doubles the
recovery time, I think that it would be desirable for many applications.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
learning experiences with removable media would be helpful.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [
Bernd Schubert wrote:
Yep, thats exactly what I'm talking about and its not only limited to usb, but
happens with sata as well.
And real SCSI hot plug drives if you pull the wrong one.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things
.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kern
ig file and just run a program
which reads the config regularly and acts based on what it finds.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux
ance characteristics. Whether they
better suit your needs or not will depend largely on your needs.
NeilBrown
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "un
ite, there are patches being tested to
improve that.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
a plain filesystem.
Are there any other caveats?
Clearly you have reduced capacity, since there's a mirror AND a CRC,
otherwise I don't see any drawbacks. The performance should be much better.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting t
David Greaves wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Leon Woestenberg wrote:
We will try to make disk clones first. Will dd suffice or do I need
something more fancy that maybe copes with source drive read errors in
a better fashion?
Yes to both. dd will be fine in most cases, and I
nd them a copy of Neil's possible issue and let
them fix it.
Oh, and dropping a lot of data into a rebuilding array is generally not
desirable, often the total time will exceed rebuild and update as serial
operations. When it comes to write performance RAID6 is good for
reliability. ;
although I
don't know details.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTE
ng "max,"
unless you got it wrong, in which case I wouldn't guess what is going to
happen.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscri
raphics to make transfer rate more uniform, but since the
most used will also be the fastest currently, that's probably not an
optimization.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from th
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Iustin Pop wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 04:11:35AM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Iustin Pop wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 07:11:50PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
You are correct, but I think if an optimization were to be done
, then a full rebuild would be
required in any case, to get ALL drives valid.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the bo
Iustin Pop wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 07:11:50PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
You are correct, but I think if an optimization were to be done, some
balance between the read time, seek time, and read size could be done.
Using more than one drive only makes sense when the read transfer
ater afterward. ;-)
Well, I did save the message in my tricks file, but it sounds like a
last ditch effort after something get very wrong.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this li
Al Boldi wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Al Boldi wrote:
The problem is that raid1 one doesn't do striped reads, but rather uses
read-balancing per proc. Try your test with parallel reads; it should
be faster.
:
:
It would be nice if reads larger than some size were consi
g crap
onboard raid arrays nor windows software raid arrays under it. i am
sure it can be done with mdadm but for the life of me i cannot seem to
figure out exactly how.
any help on this would be greatly appreciated
Casey
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
(b) it would only happen when a problem was
detected.
Does any of that sound useful?
Does that help explain the above quote?
It is still the case that:
filesystem corruption won't happen in normal operation
a small mismatch_cnt does not necessarily imply a problem.
--
bill davidsen <
Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro) wrote:
On 3/31/07, Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro) wrote:
> Please see bellow.
>
> On 8/28/06, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sunday August 13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > well ... me a
current Monday), to see not only how it
works against the test program, but also under some actual load. By eye,
my data should be safe, but I think I'll test on a well backed machine
anyway ;-)
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Rainer Fuegenstein wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
This still looks odd, why should it behave like this. I have created
a lot of arrays (when I was doing the RAID5 speed testing thread),
and never had anything like this. I'd like to see dmesg to s
-wheneverRainer Fuegenstein wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
This still looks odd, why should it behave like this. I have created
a lot of arrays (when I was doing the RAID5 speed testing thread),
and never had anything like this. I'd like to see dmesg to see if
there was an error rep
printk(KERN_WARNING "md: bitmaps not supported for
this level.\n");
- return -EINVAL;
- }
+ mddev->bitmap_file == NULL )
mddev->bitmap_offset =
(__s32)le32_to_cpu
iginal post showed the array as up
rather than some building status, also indicates some issue, perhaps.
What is the partition type of each of these partitions? Perhaps there's
a clue there.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things wi
it rebuild, then mark hdb as
failed and remove. Create a new array from hdb and hdd.
I'm sure someone will tell me if I left out a step.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from thi
Michael Tokarev wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
[]
If you use RAID0 on an array it will be faster (usually) than just
partitions, but any process with swapped pages will crash if you lose
either drive. With RAID1 operation will be more reliable but no faster.
If you use RAID10 the array will be
re reliable but no faster.
If you use RAID10 the array will be faster and more reliable, but most
recovery CDs don't know about RAID10 swap. Any reliable swap will also
have the array size smaller than the sum of the partitions (you knew that).
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
uot;unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe f
that.
BTW: that's the only one of your questions I could answer quickly.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the
must say, the kernel has become a much more complex beastie since 2.2.x!
(Although it also appears to be improved and somewhat more organized --
but definitely MUCH larger!)
Thank you both so much! I wouldn't even have diagnosed my hardware problem
without your prompts. I'm very gr
Michael Schwarz wrote:
I've tried both single and multiple files. The files are not sparse. They
are highly compressed files (mpeg files) that would, to the filesystem, be
nearly random with no repeated patterns or voids.
Good, one possible cause eliminated.
--
bill davidsen &l
nsistently no matter which.
Nonetheless, I'm beginning to think I'm dealing with a hardware issue, not
a kernel issue, just because it is so consistent.
Thanks again for all the help.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with smal
then the original would no longer be mapped to a process and
could be released.
Neil, what think you? This would be e general solution to the mismatched
multiple copies issue, assuming that it could be done at all.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing int
s, each
on their own IDE channel and see if your problem goes away.
Justin.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the bo
is it in any way "smart," since it's guessing what you
want to do and where you want to do it.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscr
as chunk size? Maybe. Makes a case for being
sure your readahead is large enough, though, for some sensible value of
"enough."
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
a cylinder is all the tracks which can be read without a seek, and
cylinder size is track size times number of data heads. If you want max
speed you can read that much off a drive at a time...
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things w
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
When last I looked at Hamming code, and that would be 1989 or 1990, I
believe that I learned that the number of Hamming bits needed to
cover N data bits was 1+log2(N), which for 512 bytes would be 1+12,
and fit into a 16 bit field nicely. I don&#
his ever worked, or if
in fact anyone ever took this path. I assume that the value of sz caused
the loop exit in all cases, since this has been in the code at least
since 2.6.15, oldest thing I have handy.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things
data in a different partition on the same
drive. It was a pretty simple test using my DIF code (i.e. 8 bytes
per sector).
I wanted to see how badly the extra seeks would affect us. The
results weren't too discouraging but I decided I liked the ZFS
approach better (having the checksum i
actually a problem. If you have any hardware issues, you
now depend on every layer not only handling them, but passing them up
and down layers.
I have put lvm over raid, but even that would be an issue to debug. I
would simplify if I had your problem.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTE
and if bitmap was enabled the bit would be set for the old
drive but no write done. If the new drive failed during the migrate the
old drive could then be resynced. Without a bitmap you DO want to write
the old drive if it's good, DON'T if you think it's failing.
Thoughts on t
Michael Stumpf wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Michael Stumpf wrote:
This is the drive I think is most suspect. What isn't obvious,
because it isn't listed in the self test log, is between #1 and #2
there was an aborted, hung test. The #4 short test that was
aborted was also a hung
ne "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscrib
data are
inconsistent between the drives and give a parity or Q mismatch? It
seems easy, given that you are going to read all the pertinent sectors
into memory anyway.
If the drive can be identified the data can be rewritten with confidence.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR A
etting hung tests, either your drive or
power supply should be redeployed as a paperweight. My opinion...
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lin
.
It's one way to do it, for sure. The main problem with that, of
course, is that it's not compatible with other operating systems.
sed s/problem/advantage/ ;-)
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers
Mike Accetta wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 09:04:40AM -0500, Mike Accetta wrote:
Thoughts or other suggestions anyone?
This is a case where a very small /boot partition is still a very good
idea... 50-100MB is a good choice (some initramfs
do a copy with the array stopped. No particular reason to
think it works better than just a rebuild. After the partition is valid
I set the active flag in the partition.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1
be
+ conf->expand_progress = (sector_nr + i) * new_data_disks;
Will the (real) fix be in 2.6.21?
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe li
Peter Rabbitson wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 06:12:32PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
I have three drives, with some various partitions, currently set up like
this.
drive0drive1drive2
hdb1 hdi1 hdk1
\_RAID1/
hdb2 hdi2 hdk2
unused
use. RAID1 on two active with the
other two as hot spares is viable as well.
In other words, you can do it, tell us the size and speed of the
partitions and you will get a bunch of ideas matched to your hardware.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doin
rk or restore are going to be
very slow.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More ma
isn't
conceptually hard.
Unfortunately the thing I'd like most is hard (RAID5E), but if/when the
SB conversion is available I would give it a test drive.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe
o
spin down nights and weekends. Does anyone have a large enough
collection of similar use drives to contribute results?
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "
nergy, and haven't built a power plant since. Then the
developed a personal computer in 1978, built a plant to manufacture it
in Waynesboro VA, and decided there was no market for a small computer.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things
everything from 2.6.15
to 2.6.20-get14, and there is no such file in any of them. There is a
per-device errors file one level down, but that presumably wouldn't be
in the superblock.
Do I have to go from 0.90 to v1 or later superblocks to get this, and if
so is that a safe thing to do?
--
cceed after the sector is
rewritten. That's the way I read it, and the way it seems to work.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ra
oot partition is striped over three
drives.
How often were you running the "check" function on your array, and did
anything show up in the S.M.A.R.T. background checks?
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers si
for (i = 0; i < conf->raid_disks; i++) {
in a manner which can be understood without alcoholic fortification?
I don't find either hard to read, but you suggestion isn't equivalent,
since it increments rather than decrements the index.
I admit I probably would write it the same way
build with it before testing
Neil's NFS stuff. The NFS server test data is on RAID10 ;-)
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid
berk walker wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
On Thursday February 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have determined that a large array was created with an
overly-large chunk size. Best way to resize?
Dump and restore.
in-place reshapes (such as raid5 + 1 disk => raid6
's a valid attempt.
However, you certainly can run 'df' and see if the filesystem is resized.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubsc
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Steve Cousins wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I'm sure "slow" is a relative term, compared to backing up TBs of
data and trying to restore them. Not to mention the lack of
inexpensive TB size backup media. That's totally unavai
Steve Cousins wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I'm sure "slow" is a relative term, compared to backing up TBs of
data and trying to restore them. Not to mention the lack of
inexpensive TB size backup media. That's totally unavailable at the
moment, I'll live with w
m sure "slow" is a relative term, compared to backing up TBs of data
and trying to restore them. Not to mention the lack of inexpensive TB
size backup media. That's totally unavailable at the moment, I'll live
with what I have, thanks.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have determined that a large array was created with an overly-large
chunk size. Best way to resize?
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
#x27;t mean that you can't run out of Bus bandwidth, but number of
drives is not obviously the issue.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
v/whatever.
??
Which would be kept in sync how when the uuid is changed?
Don't change the UUID on an active array.
Man, what fun is that? ;-) Seriously, I would expect someone to find a
use for it, but I agree it's not a requirement for anything I want to do.
--
b
ore more
places for errors to creep in.
So any solution for easy access to uuids should be done in user-space.
Maybe mdadm could create a link
/dev/md/by-uuid/ -> /dev/whatever.
??
Which would be kept in sync how when the uuid is changed?
I'm not trying to argue with you, jus
s
and verify (N-1)*chunk. In fact the data is (N-1)/N of the stripe, and
the percentage gets higher (not lower) as you add drives. I see no
reason why more drives would be slower, a higher percentage of the bytes
read are data.
That doesn't mean that you can't run out of Bus bandwi
ases it is being bypassed.
Why do you check random access to the raid
and not sequential access.
What on Earth makes you think dd uses random access???
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from
recall, and may have missed it, so I cc'd him this time.
Neil, I would think this is 2.6.21 material unless you see a problem I
missed.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe fr
Nix wrote:
On 18 Jan 2007, Bill Davidsen spake thusly:
) Steve Cousins wrote:
time dd if=/dev/zero of=/mount-point/test.dat bs=1024k count=1024
That doesn't give valid (repeatable) results due to caching issues. Go
back to the thread I started on RAID-5 write, and s
active sync /dev/sdb1
2 8 332 active sync /dev/sdc1
3 8 493 active sync /dev/sdd1
4 8 654 active sync /dev/sde1
5 8 815 active sync /dev/sdf1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]#
Se
e sync /dev/sdf1
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]#
>
>
> Sevrin
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
If they are on the
given the MTBF of modern drives.
And when you consider total failures as opposed to bad sectors it gets
even smaller. There is no perfect way to avoid ever losing data, just
ways to reduce the chance to balance the cost of data loss vs. hardware.
Current Linux will rewrite bad sectors, whole dri
Robin Bowes wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Robin Bowes wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
There have been several recent threads on the list regarding software
RAID-5 performance. The reference might be updated to reflect the poor
write performance of RAID-5 until/unless significant
Robin Bowes wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
There have been several recent threads on the list regarding software
RAID-5 performance. The reference might be updated to reflect the poor
write performance of RAID-5 until/unless significant tuning is done.
Read that as tuning obscure parameters and
ng is done.
Read that as tuning obscure parameters and throwing a lot of memory into
stripe cache. The reasons for hardware RAID should include "performance
of RAID-5 writes is usually much better than software RAID-5 with
default tuning.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO T
201 - 300 of 445 matches
Mail list logo
