John R Pierce writes:
>
> Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote:
> >
> > avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle
> >0.000.002.600.000.00 97.40
> >
> and, note its now not only copying the data nearly 100X faster, its 97%
> idle. I believe your earlier ios
Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote:
>
> I powered down the box and changed the SATA mode in BIOS f4rom Auto to
> Serial ATA. That did the trick
>
> avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle
>0.000.002.600.000.00 97.40
>
and, note its now not only copying the
John R Pierce writes:
>
> Les Mikesell wrote:
> > It should only take a couple of hours anyway unless there is a lot of
> > other activity on the partition. Something must be wrong with the
> > controller or drive.
> >
> >
>
> The IOSTAT output earlier showing the drives 100% busy at 1.8M
Les Mikesell wrote:
> It should only take a couple of hours anyway unless there is a lot of
> other activity on the partition. Something must be wrong with the
> controller or drive.
>
>
The IOSTAT output earlier showing the drives 100% busy at 1.8MB/sec
tells me they are running in ISA PIO
John R Pierce wrote:
> Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote:
>> A critical question repeated as I can't have this going on over the weekend
>> and
>> have to get the system up before next 18 hours
>>
>>
>>
>>> Q2. If I bring down the system, will the array reconstruction start from
>>> beginning or
Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote:
> A critical question repeated as I can't have this going on over the weekend
> and
> have to get the system up before next 18 hours
>
>
>
>> Q2. If I bring down the system, will the array reconstruction start from
>> beginning or from where it left off before r
A critical question repeated as I can't have this going on over the weekend and
have to get the system up before next 18 hours
> Q2. If I bring down the system, will the array reconstruction start from
> beginning or from where it left off before reboot?
Thanks
Rajagopal
Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote:
> This list never ceases to amaze me with very very quick and educating
> responses
>
>
> John R Pierce writes:
>
>
>> Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote:
>>
>> depends on your disk controllers.whats `iostat -x 5` say the IO on
>> hdb3 and hda3 is doing? (ignore the
Jeremy Rosengren writes:
> Google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS326US326&q=mdadm+resync+speed&btnG=Search--
j
>
/proc/sys/dev/raid/speed_limit_min
/proc/sys/dev/raid/speed_limit_max
[r...@localhost ~]# cat /proc/sys/dev/raid/speed_limit_min
1
[r...@localhost ~]# cat
This list never ceases to amaze me with very very quick and educating responses
John R Pierce writes:
>
> Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote:
>
> depends on your disk controllers.whats `iostat -x 5` say the IO on
> hdb3 and hda3 is doing? (ignore the first sample, its average since
avg-cpu:
Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote:
> I have configured 2x 500G sata HDD as Software RAID1 with three partitions
> md0,md1 and md2 with md2 as 400+ gigs
>
> Now it is almost 36 hours the status is
>
> cat /proc/mdstat
> Personalities : [raid1]
> md0 : active raid1 hdb1[1] hda1[0]
> 104320 blocks [2/
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Rajagopal Swaminathan <
raju.rajs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have configured 2x 500G sata HDD as Software RAID1 with three partitions
> md0,md1 and md2 with md2 as 400+ gigs
>
> Now it is almost 36 hours the status is
>
> cat /proc/mdstat
> Personalities : [raid1]
>
I have configured 2x 500G sata HDD as Software RAID1 with three partitions
md0,md1 and md2 with md2 as 400+ gigs
Now it is almost 36 hours the status is
cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid1]
md0 : active raid1 hdb1[1] hda1[0]
104320 blocks [2/2] [UU]
resync=DELAYED
md1 : active
13 matches
Mail list logo
