Re: Raid 10 Problems?
--- Michael Tokarev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jan Engelhardt wrote: > [] > > The other thing is, the bitmap is supposed to be > written out at intervals, > > not at every write, so the extra head movement for > bitmap updates should > > be really low, and not making the tar -xjf process > slower by half a minute. > > Is there a way to tweak the write-bitmap-to-disk > interval? Perhaps > > something in /sys or ye olde /proc. Maybe > linux-raid@ knows 8) > > Hmm. Bitmap is supposed to be written before actual > data write, to mark > the to-be-written areas of the array as "being > written", so that those > areas can be detected and recovered in case of power > failure during > actual write. > > So in case of writing to a clean array, head > movement always takes place - > first got to bitmap area, and second to the actual > data area. > > That "written at intervals" is about clearing the > bitmaps after some idle > time. > > In other words, dirtying bitmap bits occurs right > before actual write, > and clearing bits occurs at intervals. > > Sure, if you write to (or near) the same place again > and again, without > giving a chance to md subsystem to actually clean > the bitmap, there will > be no additional head movement. And that means, for > example, tar -xjf > sometimes, since filesystem will place the files > being extracted close to > each other, thus hitting the same bit in the bitmap, > hence md will skip > repeated bitmap updates in this case. > > /mjt > I assume that if a block is already dirty then that is cached somewhere in memory so you aren't writing to the bitmap unless you're changing it for clean to dirty? If that's the case then I would think that writing to the map wouldn't be that expensive? Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
Jan Engelhardt wrote: [] > The other thing is, the bitmap is supposed to be written out at intervals, > not at every write, so the extra head movement for bitmap updates should > be really low, and not making the tar -xjf process slower by half a minute. > Is there a way to tweak the write-bitmap-to-disk interval? Perhaps > something in /sys or ye olde /proc. Maybe linux-raid@ knows 8) Hmm. Bitmap is supposed to be written before actual data write, to mark the to-be-written areas of the array as "being written", so that those areas can be detected and recovered in case of power failure during actual write. So in case of writing to a clean array, head movement always takes place - first got to bitmap area, and second to the actual data area. That "written at intervals" is about clearing the bitmaps after some idle time. In other words, dirtying bitmap bits occurs right before actual write, and clearing bits occurs at intervals. Sure, if you write to (or near) the same place again and again, without giving a chance to md subsystem to actually clean the bitmap, there will be no additional head movement. And that means, for example, tar -xjf sometimes, since filesystem will place the files being extracted close to each other, thus hitting the same bit in the bitmap, hence md will skip repeated bitmap updates in this case. /mjt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
Jan Engelhardt wrote: [] The other thing is, the bitmap is supposed to be written out at intervals, not at every write, so the extra head movement for bitmap updates should be really low, and not making the tar -xjf process slower by half a minute. Is there a way to tweak the write-bitmap-to-disk interval? Perhaps something in /sys or ye olde /proc. Maybe linux-raid@ knows 8) Hmm. Bitmap is supposed to be written before actual data write, to mark the to-be-written areas of the array as being written, so that those areas can be detected and recovered in case of power failure during actual write. So in case of writing to a clean array, head movement always takes place - first got to bitmap area, and second to the actual data area. That written at intervals is about clearing the bitmaps after some idle time. In other words, dirtying bitmap bits occurs right before actual write, and clearing bits occurs at intervals. Sure, if you write to (or near) the same place again and again, without giving a chance to md subsystem to actually clean the bitmap, there will be no additional head movement. And that means, for example, tar -xjf sometimes, since filesystem will place the files being extracted close to each other, thus hitting the same bit in the bitmap, hence md will skip repeated bitmap updates in this case. /mjt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
--- Michael Tokarev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Engelhardt wrote: [] The other thing is, the bitmap is supposed to be written out at intervals, not at every write, so the extra head movement for bitmap updates should be really low, and not making the tar -xjf process slower by half a minute. Is there a way to tweak the write-bitmap-to-disk interval? Perhaps something in /sys or ye olde /proc. Maybe linux-raid@ knows 8) Hmm. Bitmap is supposed to be written before actual data write, to mark the to-be-written areas of the array as being written, so that those areas can be detected and recovered in case of power failure during actual write. So in case of writing to a clean array, head movement always takes place - first got to bitmap area, and second to the actual data area. That written at intervals is about clearing the bitmaps after some idle time. In other words, dirtying bitmap bits occurs right before actual write, and clearing bits occurs at intervals. Sure, if you write to (or near) the same place again and again, without giving a chance to md subsystem to actually clean the bitmap, there will be no additional head movement. And that means, for example, tar -xjf sometimes, since filesystem will place the files being extracted close to each other, thus hitting the same bit in the bitmap, hence md will skip repeated bitmap updates in this case. /mjt I assume that if a block is already dirty then that is cached somewhere in memory so you aren't writing to the bitmap unless you're changing it for clean to dirty? If that's the case then I would think that writing to the map wouldn't be that expensive? Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
On Mar 7 2007 10:20, dean gaudet wrote: >>> http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Install_on_Software_RAID#Write-intent_bitmap >> >> That information has been extremely useful. Thanks a >> lot. I fund a command to do the bitmap internal after >> the array was made so I added that. Seems like some of >> these features should be default. Maybe it's time for >> the raid folks to update what is default? > >the bitmap has performance implications... for example: >http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-raid@vger.kernel.org/msg07229.html I wonder if bitmapping a raid1 volume is faster than bmp.ing raid5. The other thing is, the bitmap is supposed to be written out at intervals, not at every write, so the extra head movement for bitmap updates should be really low, and not making the tar -xjf process slower by half a minute. Is there a way to tweak the write-bitmap-to-disk interval? Perhaps something in /sys or ye olde /proc. Maybe linux-raid@ knows 8) >note that unless you tweak your init scripts you'll need to put external >bitmaps on your root partition, see this thread: Huh? That statement does not make sense. But I think you meant: when using external bitmaps, adjust the init scripts. Because internal bitmaps are good for one thing: you don't need to change anything. Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Marc Perkel wrote: > > --- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 4 2007 19:37, Marc Perkel wrote: > > >> > > >> -b internal -- seems like a good idea to speed > > up > > >> resynchronization. > > > > > >I'm trying to figure out what the default is. > > > > -b none, meaning the whole drive will be > > resynchronized when the > > even counters don't match. > > > > > http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Install_on_Software_RAID#Write-intent_bitmap > > > > > > That information has been extremely useful. Thanks a > lot. I fund a command to do the bitmap internal after > the array was made so I added that. Seems like some of > these features should be default. Maybe it's time for > the raid folks to update what is default? the bitmap has performance implications... for example: http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-raid@vger.kernel.org/msg07229.html i still prefer to use the bitmap -- i just make it external for devices which are busy. note that unless you tweak your init scripts you'll need to put external bitmaps on your root partition, see this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-raid@vger.kernel.org/msg06441.html -dean - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Marc Perkel wrote: --- Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4 2007 19:37, Marc Perkel wrote: -b internal -- seems like a good idea to speed up resynchronization. I'm trying to figure out what the default is. -b none, meaning the whole drive will be resynchronized when the even counters don't match. http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Install_on_Software_RAID#Write-intent_bitmap That information has been extremely useful. Thanks a lot. I fund a command to do the bitmap internal after the array was made so I added that. Seems like some of these features should be default. Maybe it's time for the raid folks to update what is default? the bitmap has performance implications... for example: http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-raid@vger.kernel.org/msg07229.html i still prefer to use the bitmap -- i just make it external for devices which are busy. note that unless you tweak your init scripts you'll need to put external bitmaps on your root partition, see this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-raid@vger.kernel.org/msg06441.html -dean - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
On Mar 7 2007 10:20, dean gaudet wrote: http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Install_on_Software_RAID#Write-intent_bitmap That information has been extremely useful. Thanks a lot. I fund a command to do the bitmap internal after the array was made so I added that. Seems like some of these features should be default. Maybe it's time for the raid folks to update what is default? the bitmap has performance implications... for example: http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-raid@vger.kernel.org/msg07229.html I wonder if bitmapping a raid1 volume is faster than bmp.ing raid5. The other thing is, the bitmap is supposed to be written out at intervals, not at every write, so the extra head movement for bitmap updates should be really low, and not making the tar -xjf process slower by half a minute. Is there a way to tweak the write-bitmap-to-disk interval? Perhaps something in /sys or ye olde /proc. Maybe linux-raid@ knows 8) note that unless you tweak your init scripts you'll need to put external bitmaps on your root partition, see this thread: Huh? That statement does not make sense. But I think you meant: when using external bitmaps, adjust the init scripts. Because internal bitmaps are good for one thing: you don't need to change anything. Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
>> > -b internal -- seems like a good idea to speed up >> > resynchronization. >> >> I'm trying to figure out what the default is. >> > -e 1.0 -- I wonder why the new superblock format >> > is >> > not default in mdadm (0.90 is still used). >> > >> >> Looks interesting for big arrays but not sure it's >> worth starting over for. Trying to get through a 2 >> hour sync using 4 500gb sata 2 drives. > > That's exactly why you want the bitmap. Fortunately you can add it after the > array is created. Now the bad news, you should read and understand the meaning > of the "far" layout. Part of the information is in the mdadm man page under > -p, > some in the md man page. Use of "far" layout will effect the performance of > the > array, the balance of read vs. write performance, and (maybe) the reliability. So to keep it simple, don't use far unless you have a reason to. Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
Marc Perkel wrote: --- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mar 4 2007 19:17, Marc Perkel wrote: Thanks - because of your suggestion I had found the instructions. But you have some interesting options set. -N nicearray -b internal -e 1.0 Are these important? -N? What's in a name? I suppose, it's not so important. (Arrays are identified by their UUID anyway. But maybe udev can do something with the name someday as it does today with /dev/disk/*.) Not worth starting over for. -b internal -- seems like a good idea to speed up resynchronization. I'm trying to figure out what the default is. -e 1.0 -- I wonder why the new superblock format is not default in mdadm (0.90 is still used). Looks interesting for big arrays but not sure it's worth starting over for. Trying to get through a 2 hour sync using 4 500gb sata 2 drives. That's exactly why you want the bitmap. Fortunately you can add it after the array is created. Now the bad news, you should read and understand the meaning of the "far" layout. Part of the information is in the mdadm man page under -p, some in the md man page. Use of "far" layout will effect the performance of the array, the balance of read vs. write performance, and (maybe) the reliability. Two hours is a pretty short time to invest if you find that you have your layout wrong and would be better off for the life of the array with some other data layout. And the time to do the reading is worth if if you wind up convinced that the default settings are fine for you. -- Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
Marc Perkel wrote: --- Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4 2007 19:17, Marc Perkel wrote: Thanks - because of your suggestion I had found the instructions. But you have some interesting options set. -N nicearray -b internal -e 1.0 Are these important? -N? What's in a name? I suppose, it's not so important. (Arrays are identified by their UUID anyway. But maybe udev can do something with the name someday as it does today with /dev/disk/*.) Not worth starting over for. -b internal -- seems like a good idea to speed up resynchronization. I'm trying to figure out what the default is. -e 1.0 -- I wonder why the new superblock format is not default in mdadm (0.90 is still used). Looks interesting for big arrays but not sure it's worth starting over for. Trying to get through a 2 hour sync using 4 500gb sata 2 drives. That's exactly why you want the bitmap. Fortunately you can add it after the array is created. Now the bad news, you should read and understand the meaning of the far layout. Part of the information is in the mdadm man page under -p, some in the md man page. Use of far layout will effect the performance of the array, the balance of read vs. write performance, and (maybe) the reliability. Two hours is a pretty short time to invest if you find that you have your layout wrong and would be better off for the life of the array with some other data layout. And the time to do the reading is worth if if you wind up convinced that the default settings are fine for you. -- Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked. - from Slashdot - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
-b internal -- seems like a good idea to speed up resynchronization. I'm trying to figure out what the default is. -e 1.0 -- I wonder why the new superblock format is not default in mdadm (0.90 is still used). Looks interesting for big arrays but not sure it's worth starting over for. Trying to get through a 2 hour sync using 4 500gb sata 2 drives. That's exactly why you want the bitmap. Fortunately you can add it after the array is created. Now the bad news, you should read and understand the meaning of the far layout. Part of the information is in the mdadm man page under -p, some in the md man page. Use of far layout will effect the performance of the array, the balance of read vs. write performance, and (maybe) the reliability. So to keep it simple, don't use far unless you have a reason to. Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
On Mar 5 2007 07:59, Marc Perkel wrote: > >That information has been extremely useful. Thanks a >lot. I fund a command to do the bitmap internal after >the array was made so I added that. Seems like some of >these features should be default. Maybe it's time for >the raid folks to update what is default? So write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
--- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 4 2007 19:37, Marc Perkel wrote: > >> > >> -b internal -- seems like a good idea to speed > up > >> resynchronization. > > > >I'm trying to figure out what the default is. > > -b none, meaning the whole drive will be > resynchronized when the > even counters don't match. > > http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Install_on_Software_RAID#Write-intent_bitmap > > That information has been extremely useful. Thanks a lot. I fund a command to do the bitmap internal after the array was made so I added that. Seems like some of these features should be default. Maybe it's time for the raid folks to update what is default? 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
On Mar 4 2007 19:37, Marc Perkel wrote: >> >> -b internal -- seems like a good idea to speed up >> resynchronization. > >I'm trying to figure out what the default is. -b none, meaning the whole drive will be resynchronized when the even counters don't match. http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Install_on_Software_RAID#Write-intent_bitmap Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
On Mar 4 2007 19:37, Marc Perkel wrote: -b internal -- seems like a good idea to speed up resynchronization. I'm trying to figure out what the default is. -b none, meaning the whole drive will be resynchronized when the even counters don't match. http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Install_on_Software_RAID#Write-intent_bitmap Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
--- Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4 2007 19:37, Marc Perkel wrote: -b internal -- seems like a good idea to speed up resynchronization. I'm trying to figure out what the default is. -b none, meaning the whole drive will be resynchronized when the even counters don't match. http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Install_on_Software_RAID#Write-intent_bitmap That information has been extremely useful. Thanks a lot. I fund a command to do the bitmap internal after the array was made so I added that. Seems like some of these features should be default. Maybe it's time for the raid folks to update what is default? 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
On Mar 5 2007 07:59, Marc Perkel wrote: That information has been extremely useful. Thanks a lot. I fund a command to do the bitmap internal after the array was made so I added that. Seems like some of these features should be default. Maybe it's time for the raid folks to update what is default? So write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
--- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 4 2007 19:17, Marc Perkel wrote: > >Thanks - because of your suggestion I had found the > >instructions. But you have some interesting options > >set. > > > >-N nicearray -b internal -e 1.0 > > > >Are these important? > > -N? What's in a name? I suppose, it's not so > important. > (Arrays are identified by their UUID anyway. But > maybe > udev can do something with the name someday as it > does > today with /dev/disk/*.) Not worth starting over for. > > -b internal -- seems like a good idea to speed up > resynchronization. I'm trying to figure out what the default is. > > -e 1.0 -- I wonder why the new superblock format > is > not default in mdadm (0.90 is still used). > Looks interesting for big arrays but not sure it's worth starting over for. Trying to get through a 2 hour sync using 4 500gb sata 2 drives. > > >pci=nommconf iommu=soft > > The nvidia chipset corruption problem? > Yep - that's the one. It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
On Mar 4 2007 19:17, Marc Perkel wrote: >Thanks - because of your suggestion I had found the >instructions. But you have some interesting options >set. > >-N nicearray -b internal -e 1.0 > >Are these important? -N? What's in a name? I suppose, it's not so important. (Arrays are identified by their UUID anyway. But maybe udev can do something with the name someday as it does today with /dev/disk/*.) -b internal -- seems like a good idea to speed up resynchronization. -e 1.0 -- I wonder why the new superblock format is not default in mdadm (0.90 is still used). >pci=nommconf iommu=soft The nvidia chipset corruption problem? Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
--- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 4 2007 15:10, Marc Perkel wrote: > >> On Mar 4 2007 08:25, Marc Perkel wrote: > >> >I'm running the latest OpenVZ kernel 2.6.18. I'm > >> not > >> >sure if this is a factor or not as the problem > >> occurs > >> >without starting any VEs. > >> > > >> >I've never used raid 10 before (stripes on top > of 2 > >> >mirrors) so I don't have anything to compare > this > >> >with. I'm just wondering if I'm doing something > >> wrong. > >> > >> Are you using raid1+0 (3 md devices) or raid10 (1 > >> raid device)? > >> Depending on which, you might want to try the > other. > > > > > >I'm using 3 devices. Can you use just one? If so - > >how? > >How do I create a raid 10 using mdadm? > > mdadm -C /dev/md0 -N nicearray -b internal -e 1.0 -l > 10 -n 4 /dev/sd[abcd]1 > > for example. (See the manpage for details.) > Thanks - because of your suggestion I had found the instructions. But you have some interesting options set. -N nicearray -b internal -e 1.0 Are these important? I can restart the process. I think that I found my original problem. I forgot to use: pci=nommconf iommu=soft We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
On Mar 4 2007 15:10, Marc Perkel wrote: >> On Mar 4 2007 08:25, Marc Perkel wrote: >> >I'm running the latest OpenVZ kernel 2.6.18. I'm >> not >> >sure if this is a factor or not as the problem >> occurs >> >without starting any VEs. >> > >> >I've never used raid 10 before (stripes on top of 2 >> >mirrors) so I don't have anything to compare this >> >with. I'm just wondering if I'm doing something >> wrong. >> >> Are you using raid1+0 (3 md devices) or raid10 (1 >> raid device)? >> Depending on which, you might want to try the other. > > >I'm using 3 devices. Can you use just one? If so - >how? >How do I create a raid 10 using mdadm? mdadm -C /dev/md0 -N nicearray -b internal -e 1.0 -l 10 -n 4 /dev/sd[abcd]1 for example. (See the manpage for details.) Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
--- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 4 2007 08:25, Marc Perkel wrote: > >I'm running the latest OpenVZ kernel 2.6.18. I'm > not > >sure if this is a factor or not as the problem > occurs > >without starting any VEs. > > > >I've never used raid 10 before (stripes on top of 2 > >mirrors) so I don't have anything to compare this > >with. I'm just wondering if I'm doing something > wrong. > > Are you using raid1+0 (3 md devices) or raid10 (1 > raid device)? > Depending on which, you might want to try the other. > > > Jan > -- I'm using 3 devices. Can you use just one? If so - how? How do I create a raid 10 using mdadm? Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
On Mar 4 2007 08:25, Marc Perkel wrote: >I'm running the latest OpenVZ kernel 2.6.18. I'm not >sure if this is a factor or not as the problem occurs >without starting any VEs. > >I've never used raid 10 before (stripes on top of 2 >mirrors) so I don't have anything to compare this >with. I'm just wondering if I'm doing something wrong. Are you using raid1+0 (3 md devices) or raid10 (1 raid device)? Depending on which, you might want to try the other. Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
On Mar 4 2007 08:25, Marc Perkel wrote: I'm running the latest OpenVZ kernel 2.6.18. I'm not sure if this is a factor or not as the problem occurs without starting any VEs. I've never used raid 10 before (stripes on top of 2 mirrors) so I don't have anything to compare this with. I'm just wondering if I'm doing something wrong. Are you using raid1+0 (3 md devices) or raid10 (1 raid device)? Depending on which, you might want to try the other. Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
--- Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4 2007 08:25, Marc Perkel wrote: I'm running the latest OpenVZ kernel 2.6.18. I'm not sure if this is a factor or not as the problem occurs without starting any VEs. I've never used raid 10 before (stripes on top of 2 mirrors) so I don't have anything to compare this with. I'm just wondering if I'm doing something wrong. Are you using raid1+0 (3 md devices) or raid10 (1 raid device)? Depending on which, you might want to try the other. Jan -- I'm using 3 devices. Can you use just one? If so - how? How do I create a raid 10 using mdadm? Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
On Mar 4 2007 15:10, Marc Perkel wrote: On Mar 4 2007 08:25, Marc Perkel wrote: I'm running the latest OpenVZ kernel 2.6.18. I'm not sure if this is a factor or not as the problem occurs without starting any VEs. I've never used raid 10 before (stripes on top of 2 mirrors) so I don't have anything to compare this with. I'm just wondering if I'm doing something wrong. Are you using raid1+0 (3 md devices) or raid10 (1 raid device)? Depending on which, you might want to try the other. I'm using 3 devices. Can you use just one? If so - how? How do I create a raid 10 using mdadm? mdadm -C /dev/md0 -N nicearray -b internal -e 1.0 -l 10 -n 4 /dev/sd[abcd]1 for example. (See the manpage for details.) Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
--- Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4 2007 15:10, Marc Perkel wrote: On Mar 4 2007 08:25, Marc Perkel wrote: I'm running the latest OpenVZ kernel 2.6.18. I'm not sure if this is a factor or not as the problem occurs without starting any VEs. I've never used raid 10 before (stripes on top of 2 mirrors) so I don't have anything to compare this with. I'm just wondering if I'm doing something wrong. Are you using raid1+0 (3 md devices) or raid10 (1 raid device)? Depending on which, you might want to try the other. I'm using 3 devices. Can you use just one? If so - how? How do I create a raid 10 using mdadm? mdadm -C /dev/md0 -N nicearray -b internal -e 1.0 -l 10 -n 4 /dev/sd[abcd]1 for example. (See the manpage for details.) Thanks - because of your suggestion I had found the instructions. But you have some interesting options set. -N nicearray -b internal -e 1.0 Are these important? I can restart the process. I think that I found my original problem. I forgot to use: pci=nommconf iommu=soft We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
On Mar 4 2007 19:17, Marc Perkel wrote: Thanks - because of your suggestion I had found the instructions. But you have some interesting options set. -N nicearray -b internal -e 1.0 Are these important? -N? What's in a name? I suppose, it's not so important. (Arrays are identified by their UUID anyway. But maybe udev can do something with the name someday as it does today with /dev/disk/*.) -b internal -- seems like a good idea to speed up resynchronization. -e 1.0 -- I wonder why the new superblock format is not default in mdadm (0.90 is still used). pci=nommconf iommu=soft The nvidia chipset corruption problem? Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Raid 10 Problems?
--- Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4 2007 19:17, Marc Perkel wrote: Thanks - because of your suggestion I had found the instructions. But you have some interesting options set. -N nicearray -b internal -e 1.0 Are these important? -N? What's in a name? I suppose, it's not so important. (Arrays are identified by their UUID anyway. But maybe udev can do something with the name someday as it does today with /dev/disk/*.) Not worth starting over for. -b internal -- seems like a good idea to speed up resynchronization. I'm trying to figure out what the default is. -e 1.0 -- I wonder why the new superblock format is not default in mdadm (0.90 is still used). Looks interesting for big arrays but not sure it's worth starting over for. Trying to get through a 2 hour sync using 4 500gb sata 2 drives. pci=nommconf iommu=soft The nvidia chipset corruption problem? Yep - that's the one. It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
