Hello,
...
> > What do you think, Neil?
> I don't know what Neil thinks, but I have never liked the performance
implications of RAID-4, could you say a few words about why 4 rather than
5? My one test with RAID-4 showed the parity drive as a huge bottleneck, and
seeing that practice followed th
Hello, list,
I think, this is generally hardware error, but looks like software problem
too.
At this point there is no dirty data in memory!
Cheers,
Janos
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /]# cmp -b /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1
/dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 differ: byte 68881481729, line 308395510 is 301 M-A 74
<
[EMAIL PROTECT
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 1:25 AM
Subject: Help Please! mdadm hangs when using nbd or gnbd
> Hail to the Great Linux RAID Gurus! I humbly seek any assistance you
> can offer.
>
> I am building a couple of 20 TB l
> Ahh, i almost forget!
> The mdadm is sometimes drop "cannot allocate memory" and next try
"segfault"
> when i try -G --bitmap=internal on 2TB arrays!
> And after segfault, the full raid is stops...
>
> Cheers,
> Janos
I think i found the bug, its me. :-)
Today it happens again, and i see, i hav
--cut--
> > > I plan to resize (grow) one raid4 array.
> > >
> > > 1. stop the array.
> > > 2. resize the partition on all disks to fit the maximum size.
> >
> > The approach is currently not supported. It would need a change to
> > mdadm to find the old superblock and relocate it to the new end
- Original Message -
From: "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: raid 4, and bitmap.
> On Friday February 3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
- Original Message -
From: "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: Raid 4 resize, raid0 limit question
> On Friday February 3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > He
- Original Message -
From: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: raid 4, and bitmap.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Neil Brown" <[EMAI
- Original Message -
From: "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: raid 4, and bitmap.
> On Friday February 3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hello, list, Neil,
&
- Original Message -
From: "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:09 AM
Subject: Re: mdadm options, and man page
> On Tuesday January 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hello, N
Hi,
- Original Message -
From: "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John Rowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:37 PM
Subject: Re: Expanding RAID array?
> On Monday January 16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I have a 5-disk RAID5 array. Is it possible to add dis
Hello, list,
I have found one interesting issue.
I use 4 disk node with NBD, and the concentrator distributes the load equal
thanks to 32KB chunksize RAID0 inside.
At this time i am working on the system upgrade, and found one interesting
issue, and possibly one bottleneck on the system.
The con
- Original Message -
From: "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 4:07 AM
Subject: Re: where is the spare drive? :-)
> On Monday January 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
- Original Message -
From: "Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: raid5 read performance
> NBD for network block device ?
Yes. :-)
> why do u use it ?
- Original Message -
From: "Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Linux RAID Mailing List"
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: raid5 read performance
> 1. it is not good to use
- Original Message -
From: "Marc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: where is the spare drive? :-)
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 00:26:58 +0100, JaniD++ wrote
> > Hello, list,
>
> > Few months ago i got one patch from you to let the linear raid handle
>2TB
> > devices.
> > At this point i not to able to test it, because i dont have money to
buy
> > the upgrade.
> >
> > The question is this:
> >
> > If i switch from i386 to x86_64, the patch will be unneccesary or still
ne
Hello, list,
I try to test raidreconf utility on my spare drives in my disk nodes.
(i want to convert raid0 chunksize 32K to 1M)
Why happenning this?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] raid-converter]# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid5] [multipath] [faulty]
md20 : active raid0 nbd7
- Original Message -
From: "Al Boldi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: RAID0 performance question
> JaniD++ wrote:
> > For me, the performance bottleneck is clea
- Original Message -
From: "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: RAID0 performance question
> On Tuesday November 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I h
- Original Message -
From: "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 5:46 AM
Subject: Re: RAID5 resync question BUGREPORT!
> On Monday December 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
- Original Message -
From: "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Al Boldi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 2:40 AM
Subject: Re: RAID0 performance question
> On Sunday Decembe
- Original Message -
From: "Al Boldi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: RAID0 performance question
> JaniD++ wrote:
> > For me, the performance bottleneck is clea
- Original Message -
From: "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 1:57 AM
Subject: Re: RAID5 resync question BUGREPORT!
> On Thursday November 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> &
- Original Message -
From: "Al Boldi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: RAID0 performance question
> JaniD++ wrote:
> > > > > > > But
, either the bitmap file is corrupted
or you need to upgrade your tools
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]#
And now what? :-)
Cheers,
Janos
- Original Message -
From: "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, December 09,
etween the bitmap-create and bitmap update.)
My data lost finally, really minimal. :-)
Cheers,
Janos
- Original Message -
From: "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 12:43 AM
Subject: R
md0
And the system is crashed.
no ping reply, no netconsole error logging, no panic and reboot.
Thanks,
Janos
- Original Message -
From: "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 2:05 AM
Subjec
> >
> > One time while my array is really rebuild one disk (paralel normal
> > workload), i see, the new drive in the array *only* writes.
> > i means with "better handling of half-synced array" is this:
> > If read request comes to the ?% synced array, and if the read is on the
> > synced half, on
> > I know, it is some chance to leave some incorrect parity information on
the
> > array, but may be corrected by next write.
>
> Or it may not be corrected by the next write. The parity-update
> algorithm assumes that the parity is correct.
Hmm.
If it works with parity-update algorithm, instea
- Original Message -
From: "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 1:32 AM
Subject: Re: RAID5 resync question
> On Tuesday December 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hello, list,
>
Hello,
> > > > > But the cat /dev/md31 >/dev/null (RAID0, the sum of 4 nodes) only
> > > > > makes ~450-490 Mbit/s, and i dont know why
> > > > >
> > > > > Somebody have an idea? :-)
> > > >
> > > > Try increasing the read-ahead setting on /dev/md31 using 'blockdev'.
> > > > network block devi
- Original Message -
From: "Al Boldi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: RAID0 performance question
> JaniD++ wrote:
> > Al Boldi wrote:
> > > Neil Br
Hi,
- Original Message -
From: "Al Boldi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ; "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: RAID0 performance question
> Neil Brown w
v/md4
blockdev --setra 4096 /dev/md31
:-)
This is the "default" for me.
The test is have made with this settings.
The problem is somewhere else
Thanks
Janos
- Original Message -
From: "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECT
Hello, Zoltán!
- Original Message -
From: "Lajber Zoltan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: RAID0 performance question
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, JaniD++ wrote:
>
> &g
772 680 S 2.7 0.0 1:09 3 xfs_fsr
6955 root 15 0 1588 10836 S 2.7 0.0 0:56 2 nbd-client
- Original Message -
From: "Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, Nov
37 matches
Mail list logo
