On Tuesday June 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> When I try and disable auto detection, with kernel boot parameters, it
> goes ahead and auto assembles and runs anyway. The md= parameters seem
> to be noticed, but don't seem to have any other effect (beyond resulting
> in a dmesg).
Odd
Maybe yo
When I try and disable auto detection, with kernel boot parameters, it
goes ahead and auto assembles and runs anyway. The md= parameters seem
to be noticed, but don't seem to have any other effect (beyond resulting
in a dmesg).
Here is the result
$ dmesg | egrep 'raid|md:'
Kernel
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Dan Williams wrote:
> > 7. And now, the question: the best absolute 'write' performance comes
> > with a stripe_cache_size value of 4096 (for my setup). However, any
> > value of stripe_cache_size above 384 really, really hurts 'check' (and
> > rebuild, one can assume) perform
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Jon Nelson wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Jon Nelson wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Raz wrote:
What is your raid configuration ?
Please note that the stripe_cache_size is acting as a bottle neck in some
cases.
Well, that's kind of the point of my email. I'll try to restate
7. And now, the question: the best absolute 'write' performance comes
with a stripe_cache_size value of 4096 (for my setup). However, any
value of stripe_cache_size above 384 really, really hurts 'check' (and
rebuild, one can assume) performance. Why?
Question:
After performance goes "bad" does
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Jon Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Raz wrote:
>
> > What is your raid configuration ?
> > Please note that the stripe_cache_size is acting as a bottle neck in some
> > cases.
Well, that's kind of the point of my email. I'll try to restate things,
as my question appear
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
I have found a 16MB stripe_cache_size results i
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
I have found a 16MB stripe_cache_size results in optimal performance
after testing many many
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
I have found a 16MB stripe_cache_size results in optimal performance
after testing many many values :)
We have discussed this before, my
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
I have found a 16MB stripe_cache_size results in optimal performance after
testing many many values :)
We have discussed this before, my experience has been that after 8 x stripe
si
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Thorsten Wolf wrote:
Hello again.
I've upgraded my SLES 9 SP3 system to SLES 10 (no SP1). The raid I had running
on my devices:
/dev/hdg1 /dev/hdi1 /dev/hdk1 /dev/hde1
doesn't work because SLES 10 does detect them as:
/dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1
Hello again.
I've upgraded my SLES 9 SP3 system to SLES 10 (no SP1). The raid I had running
on my devices:
/dev/hdg1 /dev/hdi1 /dev/hdk1 /dev/hde1
doesn't work because SLES 10 does detect them as:
/dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1
I guess it's going to be simple, but can anyon
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
I have found a 16MB stripe_cache_size results in optimal performance after
testing many many values :)
We have discussed this before, my experience has been that after 8 x stripe
size the performance gains hit diminishing retur
It was going with 32k just REALLY slow, will use 128k+
1073737728 2007-06-25 13:07 Bonnie.5178.000
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
I have found a 16MB stripe_cache_size
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
I have found a 16MB stripe_cache_size results in optimal performance after
testing many many values :)
We have discussed this before, my experience has been that after 8 x stripe
si
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
I have found a 16MB stripe_cache_size results in optimal performance after
testing many many values :)
We have discussed this before, my experience has been that after 8 x stripe
size the performance gains hit diminishing retur
Justin Piszcz wrote:
I have found a 16MB stripe_cache_size results in optimal performance
after testing many many values :)
We have discussed this before, my experience has been that after 8 x
stripe size the performance gains hit diminishing returns, particularly
for typical write instead of
Richard Scobie wrote:
I will soon be adding another same sized drive to an existing 3 drive
RAID 5 array.
The machine is running Fedora Core 6 with kernel 2.6.20-1.2952.fc6 and
mdadm 2.5.4, both of which are the latest available Fedora packages.
Is anyone aware of any obvious bugs in either
18 matches
Mail list logo
