Does software RAID take advantage of SMP, or 64 bit CPU(s)?

2006-05-23 Thread Adam Talbot
A few simple questions about the 2.6.16+ kernel and software RAID. Does software RAID in the 2.6.16 kernel take advantage of SMP? Does software RAID take advantage of 64-bit CPU(s)? If there are any good web sites that cover this information, a link would be GREAT! -Adam Talbot - To unsubscribe

Re: Does software RAID take advantage of SMP, or 64 bit CPU(s)?

2006-05-23 Thread Neil Brown
On Monday May 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few simple questions about the 2.6.16+ kernel and software RAID. Does software RAID in the 2.6.16 kernel take advantage of SMP? Not exactly. RAID5/6 tends to use just one cpu for parity calculations, but that frees up other cpus for doing other

improving raid 5 performance

2006-05-23 Thread Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro)
Neil hello. 1. i have applied the common path according to http://www.spinics.net/lists/raid/msg11838.html as much as i can. it looks ok in terms of throughput. before i continue to a non common path ( step 3 ) i do not understand raid0_mergeable_bvec entirely. as i understand the code checks

Re: improving raid 5 performance

2006-05-23 Thread Neil Brown
On Tuesday May 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Neil hello. 1. i have applied the common path according to http://www.spinics.net/lists/raid/msg11838.html as much as i can. Great. I look forward to seeing the results. it looks ok in terms of throughput. before i continue to a non common

Re: Does software RAID take advantage of SMP, or 64 bit CPU(s)?

2006-05-23 Thread Adam Talbot
-Neil I was not looking for any direct advantage. It is more a money VS performance thing. I have a old dual proc Opteron motherboard. I am going with 64-bit, but it is much cheaper if I just go buy a nice single proc board instead of buying two Opterons for my dual proc board. If I could get

Re: raid5 disaster

2006-05-23 Thread Mike Hardy
Bruno Seoane wrote: mdadm -C -l5 -n5 -c=128 /dev/md0 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sda1 I took the devices order from the mdadm output on a working device. Is this the way it's supposed to be the command assembled? Is there anything alse I should consider or any other

[RFC][PATCH] md: Move stripe operations outside the spinlock (v2)

2006-05-23 Thread Dan Williams
The following is a revision of the patch with the suggested changes. -Eliminate the wait_for_block_ops queue -Simplify the code by tracking the operations at the stripe level not the block level -Integrate the work struct into stripe_head (remove the need for memory allocation) -Make the work

iostat messed up with md on 2.6.16.x

2006-05-23 Thread Pallai Roland
Hi, I upgraded my kernel from 2.6.15.6 to 2.6.16.16 and now the 'iostat -x 1' permanently shows 100% utilisation on each disk that member of an md array. I asked my friend who using 3 boxes with 2.6.16.2 2.6.16.9 2.6.16.11 and raid1, he's reported the same too. it works for anyone? I don't