Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Donnerstag 29 November 2007 schrieb Rui Santos:
>
>>>> Just to remember that that specific flag was one SET and, was removed,
>>>> in part, because of what I state. Of course we aim at perfection but, if
>>>> the benefits are
Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 11:01:34 schrieb Rui Santos:
>
>>> Changing the unusual_devs.h flag to IGNORE_DEVICE should accomplish what
>>> you want.
>>>
>>>
>> If the IGNORE_DEVICE flag is set, access to
, if
the benefits are only for a few situations and, will cause all this
problems for all other, perhaps the reinsert of that flag would be a
positive action.
Regards,
Rui Santos
> Matt
>
>
-
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/
SET and, was removed,
in part, because of what I state. Of course we aim at perfection but, if
the benefits are only for a few situations and, will cause all this
problems for all other, perhaps the reinsert of that flag would be a
positive action.
Regards,
Rui Santos
Matt
-
To unsubscribe
Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 11:01:34 schrieb Rui Santos:
Changing the unusual_devs.h flag to IGNORE_DEVICE should accomplish what
you want.
If the IGNORE_DEVICE flag is set, access to the device's virtual-cd is
no longer possible, and might
Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Donnerstag 29 November 2007 schrieb Rui Santos:
Just to remember that that specific flag was one SET and, was removed,
in part, because of what I state. Of course we aim at perfection but, if
the benefits are only for a few situations and, will cause all
chunk, and thus with a 4k block size
> you would need a stride of 32.
Hi Koan,
Yes, I'm sure... Those 128K chunk was my initial setup, before the
enlightenment from http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-RAID-HOWTO-5.html
My reported test setup is by using 256K chunk.
>
>
>
> On 7/18/07, Rui S
would need a stride of 32.
Hi Koan,
Yes, I'm sure... Those 128K chunk was my initial setup, before the
enlightenment from http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-RAID-HOWTO-5.html
My reported test setup is by using 256K chunk.
On 7/18/07, Rui Santos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
koan wrote:
How did you
J.A. Magallón wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:56:11 +0100, Rui Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm getting a strange slow performance behavior on a recently installed
>> Server. Here are the details:
>>
>>
> ...
>
koan wrote:
> How did you create the ext3 filesystem?
The chunk_size is at 256KB, ext3 block size is 4k. I believe the correct
option that should be passed trough to --stride is 64.
Am I correct ?
I've also tested ( after sending my first report ) with xfs.
I've also increases readahead to 65535
, at least, be able to get write speeds of
120MB/sec instead of the current 73MB/sec? Is this a Soft-RAID problem
or could it be something else ? Or I'm just missing something ?
Thanks for your time,
Rui Santos
Inspecting /boot/System.map-2.6.22.1-default
Loaded 26530 symbols from /boot/System.map
Final quote: Shouldn't I, at least, be able to get write speeds of
120MB/sec instead of the current 73MB/sec? Is this a Soft-RAID problem
or could it be something else ? Or I'm just missing something ?
Thanks for your time,
Rui Santos
Inspecting /boot/System.map-2.6.22.1-default
Loaded 26530 symbols
koan wrote:
How did you create the ext3 filesystem?
The chunk_size is at 256KB, ext3 block size is 4k. I believe the correct
option that should be passed trough to --stride is 64.
Am I correct ?
I've also tested ( after sending my first report ) with xfs.
I've also increases readahead to 65535
J.A. Magallón wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:56:11 +0100, Rui Santos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm getting a strange slow performance behavior on a recently installed
Server. Here are the details:
...
I can get a write throughput of 60 MB/sec on each HD by issuing
14 matches
Mail list logo
