On 20/01/2006 11:32 a.m., Neil Brown wrote:
On Thursday January 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm currently of the opinion that dm needs a raid5 and raid6 module
added, then the user land lvm tools fixed to use them, and then you
could use dm instead of md. The benefit being that dm pushes thin
Neil Brown wrote:
Maybe the problem here is thinking of md and dm as different things.
Try just not thinking of them at all.
Think about it like this:
The linux kernel support lvm
The linux kernel support multipath
The linux kernel support snapshots
The linux kernel support raid0
The lin
Neil Brown wrote:
>On Wednesday January 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Are there any known issues with changing the number of active devices in
>>a RAID1 array?
>
>
>There is now, thanks.
>
>>I'm trying to add a third mirror to an existing RAID1 array of two disks.
>>
>>I have /dev/md5
On Thursday January 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Neil Brown wrote:
> >
> > The in-kernel autodetection in md is purely legacy support as far as I
> > am concerned. md does volume detection in user space via 'mdadm'.
> >
> > What other "things like" were you thinking of.
> >
>
> Oh, I suppose
Neil Brown wrote:
The in-kernel autodetection in md is purely legacy support as far as I
am concerned. md does volume detection in user space via 'mdadm'.
What other "things like" were you thinking of.
Oh, I suppose that's true. Well, another thing is your new mods to
support on the fly r
> echo "1" > /proc/sys/dev/raid/speed-limit-max (or similar?)
>
> You can do that in /etc/rc.local or something to make sure it sticks,
echo "dev.raid.speed_limit_max = 1" >> /etc/sysctl.conf
is another, perhaps nicer way to make the setting permanent.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: se
What kernel are you using?
NeilBrown
Kernel version : 2.6.15-gentoo
Yes, it's strange... Not very annoying, as the rebuild is finished already
(at 40 MB/s it was short), but strange.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL P
On Thursday January 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm currently of the opinion that dm needs a raid5 and raid6 module
> added, then the user land lvm tools fixed to use them, and then you
> could use dm instead of md. The benefit being that dm pushes things
> like volume autodetection and mana
I'm currently of the opinion that dm needs a raid5 and raid6 module
added, then the user land lvm tools fixed to use them, and then you
could use dm instead of md. The benefit being that dm pushes things
like volume autodetection and management out of the kernel to user space
where it belongs.
On Thursday January 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Sorry for flooding ;)
>
> I have the following configuration :
> - two disks (hda and sda)
> - each disk has 2 partitions (hda1/sda1) and (hda2/sda2)
> - two raid1 md devices are made :
> md0 = sda1 + hda1, c
PFC wrote:
> When rebuilding md1, it does not realize accesses to md0 wait for
> the same disks. Thus reconstruction of md1 runs happily at full speed,
> and the machine is dog slow, because the OS and everything is on md0.
> (I cat /dev/zero to a file on md1 to slow the rebuild so it w
On 2006-01-19T21:12:02, Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Use md for raid1, raid5, raid6 - anything with redundancy.
> > Use dm for multipath, crypto, linear, LVM, snapshot
> There are pairs of files that look like they would do the same thing:
>
> raid1.c <-> dm-raid1.c
> linear
>> >personally, I think this this useful functionality, but my personal
>> >preference is that this would be in DM/LVM2 rather than MD. but given
>> >Neil is the MD author/maintainer, I can see why he'd prefer to do it in
>> >MD. :)
>>
>> Why don't MD and DM merge some bits?
>
>Which bits?
>Why?
> Use either for raid0 (I don't think dm has particular advantages
> for md or md over dm).
I measured this a few months ago, and was surprised to find that
DM raid0 was very noticably slower than MD raid0. same machine,
same disks/controller/kernel/settings/stripe-size. I didn't try
to f
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 16 2006, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >>Max Waterman wrote:
> >>>I've noticed that I consistently get better (read) numbers from kernel
> >>>2.6.8 than from later kernels.
> >>
> >>To open the bottlenecks, the following works well. Jens will sho
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 11:22:31AM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
...
> Compare this to an offline solution (raidreconfig) where all the code
> is only used occasionally. You could argue that the online version
> has more code safety than the offline version
Correct.
raidreconf, however, can conve
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, PFC wrote:
> This isn't really a md issue, but it's really annoying only when using
> RAID, because it makes a normal process (kicking a dead drive out) so slow
> it's almost non-functional. Is there a way to modify the timeout in question ?
yeah i posted to l-k about s
17 matches
Mail list logo
