Re: naming of md devices

2006-03-24 Thread Nix
On 23 Mar 2006, Dan Christensen moaned: > To answer myself, the boot parameter raid=noautodetect is supposed > to turn off autodetection. However, it doesn't seem to have an > effect with Debian's 2.6.16 kernel. It does disable autodetection > for my self-compiled kernel, but since that kernel ha

Re: naming of md devices

2006-03-24 Thread Nix
On 23 Mar 2006, Daniel Pittman uttered the following: > The initramfs tool, which is mostly shared with Ubuntu, is less stupid. > It uses mdadm and a loop to scan through the devices found on the > machine and find what RAID levels are required, then builds the RAID > arrays with mdrun. That's muc

Re: raid5 that used parity for reads only when degraded

2006-03-24 Thread Alex Izvorski
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 09:19 -0800, dean gaudet wrote: > On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Alex Izvorski wrote: > > > Also the cpu load is measured with Andrew Morton's cyclesoak > > tool which I believe to be quite accurate. > > there's something cyclesoak does which i'm not sure i agree with: > cyclesoak pr

Re: raid5 that used parity for reads only when degraded

2006-03-24 Thread dean gaudet
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Alex Izvorski wrote: > Also the cpu load is measured with Andrew Morton's cyclesoak > tool which I believe to be quite accurate. there's something cyclesoak does which i'm not sure i agree with: cyclesoak process dirties an array of 100 bytes... so what you're really ge

Re: Re[2]: Concept problem with RAID1?

2006-03-24 Thread John Rowe
A much nicer way to get that sort of reliability would be for RAID6 to periodically scan the blocks on the device and to use the extra information to do ECC (and for RAID5 to at tell syslog). John - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to

Re: Concept problem with RAID1?

2006-03-24 Thread PFC
I think you would like something like this : A LVM (or dm- device mapper) layer which sits between the RAID layer and the physical disks. This layer computes checksums as data is written to the physical disks, and checks read data against these checksums. Problem is, where do yo

Re: raid5 high cpu usage during reads

2006-03-24 Thread Alex Izvorski
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 15:38 +1100, Neil Brown wrote: > On Thursday March 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Neil - Thank you very much for the response. > > > > In my tests with identically configured raid0 and raid5 arrays, raid5 > > initially had much lower throughput during reads. I had assume