dean gaudet wrote:
[]
if this is for a database or fs requiring lots of small writes then
raid5/6 are generally a mistake... raid10 is the only way to get
performance. (hw raid5/6 with nvram support can help a bit in this area,
but you just can't beat raid10 if you need lots of writes/s.)
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
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 tuning is done.
Read that as
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
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Robin Bowes wrote:
I'm running RAID6 instead of RAID5+1 - I've had a couple of instances
where a drive has failed in a RAID5+1 array and a second has failed
during the rebuild after the hot-spare had kicked in.
if the failures were read errors without losing the entire
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, dean gaudet wrote:
you can also run monthly checks...
echo check /sys/block/mdX/md/sync_action
it'll read the entire array (parity included) and correct read errors as
they're discovered.
A-Ha ... I've not been keeping up with the list for a bit - what's the
minimum
dean gaudet wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Robin Bowes wrote:
I'm running RAID6 instead of RAID5+1 - I've had a couple of instances
where a drive has failed in a RAID5+1 array and a second has failed
during the rebuild after the hot-spare had kicked in.
if the failures were read errors
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, berk walker wrote:
dean gaudet wrote:
echo check /sys/block/mdX/md/sync_action
it'll read the entire array (parity included) and correct read errors as
they're discovered.
Could I get a pointer as to how I can do this check in my FC5 [BLAG] system?
I can find
Hello Dean ,
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, dean gaudet wrote:
...snip...
it should just be:
echo check /sys/block/mdX/md/sync_action
if you don't have a /sys/block/mdX/md/sync_action file then your kernel is
too old... or you don't have /sys mounted... (or you didn't replace X with
the raid
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
Hello Dean ,
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, dean gaudet wrote:
...snip...
it should just be:
echo check /sys/block/mdX/md/sync_action
if you don't have a /sys/block/mdX/md/sync_action file then your kernel is
too old... or you
On 1/12/07, James Ralston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-01-12 at 09:39-08 dean gaudet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, James Ralston wrote:
I'm having a discussion with a coworker concerning the cost of
md's raid5 implementation versus hardware raid5 implementations.
Dan Williams wrote:
On 1/12/07, James Ralston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-01-12 at 09:39-08 dean gaudet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, James Ralston wrote:
I'm having a discussion with a coworker concerning the cost of
md's raid5 implementation versus hardware raid5
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 throwing a lot of
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, 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
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, James Ralston wrote:
I'm having a discussion with a coworker concerning the cost of md's
raid5 implementation versus hardware raid5 implementations.
Specifically, he states:
The performance [of raid5 in hardware] is so much better with the
write-back caching on the
On 2007-01-12 at 09:39-08 dean gaudet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, James Ralston wrote:
I'm having a discussion with a coworker concerning the cost of
md's raid5 implementation versus hardware raid5 implementations.
Specifically, he states:
The performance [of
16 matches
Mail list logo
