On Thursday April 12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I am curious if swap on raid works in the 2.4 kernels. If anyone could let me
> know I would appreciate it.
Yes, it does.
NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROT
Am Donnerstag, 12. April 2001 18:48 schrieb Gregory Leblanc:
> No offense, but you haven't benchmarked yet, so how do you know? hdparm
> is very often on crack when it comes to benchmarking numbers. Bonnie++
> isn't that great at measuring RAID throughput (although it's very nice
> on single dri
You are right -- I have not benchmarked yet. Speed is not that important to
me. I am really only concerned with the redundancy. I just thought that
hdparm would be a good test of single threaded sequential reads( but I have no
idea if that is true ).
A few kernels ago I tried the raid-1 read b
Gregory Leblanc wrote:
>
> On 12 Apr 2001 15:55:51 +, Craig Servin wrote:
> > I have often had the same question.
> >
> > I run in a raid-1 configuration and my read performance( mesured with hdparm
> > -t ) on the md devices is about half of that of the ha[a-z] devices. I had
> > always ass
Am Donnerstag, 12. April 2001 18:48 schrieb Gregory Leblanc:
> No offense, but you haven't benchmarked yet, so how do you know? hdparm
> is very often on crack when it comes to benchmarking numbers. Bonnie++
> isn't that great at measuring RAID throughput (although it's very nice
> on single dri
On 12 Apr 2001 15:55:51 +, Craig Servin wrote:
> I have often had the same question.
>
> I run in a raid-1 configuration and my read performance( mesured with hdparm
> -t ) on the md devices is about half of that of the ha[a-z] devices. I had
> always assumed that reads where ballanced among
Am Donnerstag, 12. April 2001 17:59 schrieb C. R. Oldham:
> Craig Servin wrote:
> > I have often had the same question.
>
> What does bonnie say?
Here are my bonnie results:
-- RAID-0 --
-- chunk-size=16 --
Version 1.01--Sequential Output-- --Sequential Input- --Random-
Craig Servin wrote:
> I have often had the same question.
What does bonnie say?
--
/ C. R. (Charles) Oldham | NCA-CASI \
/ Director of Technology | Arizona State University \
/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | V:480-965-8703 F:480-965-9423 \
-
To unsubscribe from th
I have often had the same question.
I run in a raid-1 configuration and my read performance( mesured with hdparm
-t ) on the md devices is about half of that of the ha[a-z] devices. I had
always assumed that reads where ballanced among the devices that made up the
raid-1 volume and that reads wo
Hi,
I've successfully set up SW-RAID0 with Kernel 2.4.3 and Raidtools 0.9.
I did this to increase the performance of my HD, but nothig happens.
hdparm -t /dev/md0 : 20.25 MB/sec
hdparm -t /dev/hda : 20.51 MB/sec
hdaprm -t /dev/hdc : 20.71 MB/sec
I thougt the performnace of RAID0 should near 40MB/s
On 11-Apr-01 at 16:39:16 Bob Glamm wrote:
> True, but that's not the root cause of the problem. I saw this
> message about two months ago - it turns out that there is an
> inconsistency between software RAID and extended/logical partitions
> on a device. Trying to do software RAID over anything
On 11-Apr-01 at 15:36:55 Richard Hirst wrote:
> If you have /dev/md0 as raid1 mirroring /dev/hda5 and /dev/hdc5,
> then you want to boot with root=/dev/md0, not root=/dev/hda5.
> Also, you should be running e2fsck on /dev/md0, not the actual
> partitions.
>
Thanks for this. However, as far as I
12 matches
Mail list logo
