On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 12:09 -0400, Toby Bluhm wrote:
> cat /proc/mdstat gives progress
>
> cat /sys/block/md0/md/sync_action gives current mode
Of course! I guess when I ran the check on md0, it finished before I
had the opportunity to watch the progress, so I wasn't sure what to
check.
Also,
Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
.
.
.
You said above, "When this finishes...", but how do you know the check
is completed? I saw this in /var/log/messages:
cat /proc/mdstat gives progress
cat /sys/block/md0/md/sync_action gives current mode
-tkb
__
Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
> You said above, "When this finishes...", but how do you know the check
> is completed? I saw this in /var/log/messages:
cat /proc/mdstat ? That at least shows status of RAID rebuilds, not
sure about other types of tasks.
nate
On Sun, 2008-09-21 at 21:01 +0200, Kay Diederichs wrote:
> Fact is that with CentOS-5 kernels (but not with CentOS-4, as this
> functionality became available in kernel 2.6.17) you could (or rather
> _should_ regularly)
> echo check > /sys/block/mdX/md/sync_action
> to check agreement between
Alexander Georgiev wrote:
2008/9/30 Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
BTW, there is - even with current kernels - no speed gain in using RAID1 -
see http://kernelnewbies.org/KernelProjects/Raid1ReadBalancing .
I don't think I believe that - you can see the reads alternating drives by
watching t
2008/9/30 Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> BTW, there is - even with current kernels - no speed gain in using RAID1 -
>> see http://kernelnewbies.org/KernelProjects/Raid1ReadBalancing .
>
> I don't think I believe that - you can see the reads alternating drives by
> watching the lights.
Inde
Kay Diederichs wrote:
Fact is that with CentOS-5 kernels (but not with CentOS-4, as this
functionality became available in kernel 2.6.17) you could (or rather
_should_ regularly)
echo check > /sys/block/mdX/md/sync_action
to check agreement between the two (or more) copies. When this finis
This makes sense. I'm pretty sure that tests that I've run in the past
using bonnie++ or iozone showed faster reads with raid1 than with a
single drive. I would think that if the drives are on seperate
controllers (and depending upon the performance/capacity of the drives
and controllers), the
On Sun, 2008-09-21 at 12:53 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
> Kay Diederichs wrote:
> > BTW, there is - even with current kernels - no speed gain in using
> > RAID1 - see http://kernelnewbies.org/KernelProjects/Raid1ReadBalancing .
>
> except, thats wrong. I unwrapped a recent kernel source tarball f
On Sun, 2008-09-21 at 21:01 +0200, Kay Diederichs wrote:
> Nataraj wrote:
> > Does software raid 1 compare checksums or otherwise verify that the same
> > bits are coming from both disks during reads? What I'm interested in,
> > is whether bit errors that were somehow undetected by the hardware wo
Kay Diederichs wrote:
BTW, there is - even with current kernels - no speed gain in using
RAID1 - see http://kernelnewbies.org/KernelProjects/Raid1ReadBalancing .
except, thats wrong. I unwrapped a recent kernel source tarball from
kernel.org and found...
static struct mirror *choose_mirror(s
Nataraj wrote:
Does software raid 1 compare checksums or otherwise verify that the same
bits are coming from both disks during reads? What I'm interested in,
is whether bit errors that were somehow undetected by the hardware would
be detected by the raid 1 software.
Thanks,
Nataraj
I've been
12 matches
Mail list logo
