On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 09:44:39PM +0800, Shu Ming wrote:
> 于 2012-10-14 5:15, Dan Kenigsberg:
> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:38:19PM +0800, Shu Ming wrote:
> >> After reading the code, every mailbox should be 4096 byte size.
> >> And the total mailbox size is host * 4096. Ony one host is here, so
于 2012-10-14 5:15, Dan Kenigsberg:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:38:19PM +0800, Shu Ming wrote:
>> After reading the code, every mailbox should be 4096 byte size.
>> And the total mailbox size is host * 4096. Ony one host is here, so
>> the total mailbox size here is 4096. why should the 'dd' operat
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:38:19PM +0800, Shu Ming wrote:
> After reading the code, every mailbox should be 4096 byte size.
> And the total mailbox size is host * 4096. Ony one host is here, so
> the total mailbox size here is 4096. why should the 'dd' operation
> read 1024000 byte which is 1000K b
After reading the code, every mailbox should be 4096 byte size.
And the total mailbox size is host * 4096. Ony one host is here, so
the total mailbox size here is 4096. why should the 'dd' operation
read 1024000 byte which is 1000K byte much lager than 4096 here?
2012-10-11 18:54, Dan Kenigsberg:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:44:25PM +0800, Shu Ming wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found some "dd" operations were launched contiguously in my vdsm.log.
> Is this harmful? How was this operation caused?
That's storage.storage_mailbox.SPM_MailMonitor, polling for lvextend
requests. dd is used, since in the old
