Felix Frank-2 wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
>> if I check the status of drbd the following response is:
>>
>> 0: cs: Connected ro: Primary / Primary ds: UpToDate / UpToDate C r ----
>> ns: 640864680 nr: 135234784 dw: 776099464 dr: 1520599328 al: 836478
>> bm:
>> 2185 lo: 0 pe: 0 ua: 0 ap: 0 ep: 1 wo: b OOS: 0
>>
>> I do not know if it is positive that the method is to write after is
>> Barrier
>> .... reading the manuals of drbd I noticed that in these cases (BBU)
>> performance would be better for a wo:n
>>
>> What do you think?
>
>>>Possibly? You may want to just test the performance difference.
>
> so there is no certainty that it is more powerful
> I can just do a test
>
>> more to this I can tell you that another hardware configuration with a
>> simple SATA disks in software raid 0 configuration (sda and sdb) and
>> without drbd.conf options: no-disk-flushes -no-md-flushes, The drbd uses
>> instead the drain ... that seems to be dangerous without a BBU, but the
>> drbd
>> has preferred this choice, and not clear to me ...
>
>>>Check you kernel logs. DRBD may have noticed that barriers are not
>>>available for your backing device and thus falls back to drain. Is LVM
>>>involved in your that setup per chance?
>
>>>Regards,
>>>Felix
>
> Unfortunately I have nothing in the logs, the rotate deleted the old log,
> but do not understand much because the drbd not find in my backing storage
> support for the barrier, I use LVM on top of drbd and not vice versa, is
> not this strange thing?
>
>
> ____________
> ___________________________________
> drbd-user mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.linbit.com/mailman/listinfo/drbd-user
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/DRBD-write-after-write-%28cache%29-tp30850998p30881352.html
Sent from the DRBD - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
drbd-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linbit.com/mailman/listinfo/drbd-user
