On Sun, 21 May 2006, Neil Brown wrote:
Please read
http://www.spinics.net/lists/raid/msg11838.html
and ask if you have further questions.
Neil,
what is the current status on the slow read performance with 2.6 ?
Regards,
Stephan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
when i try to start my raid with mdadm 2.2 it gives a segfault :
]# mdadm -A /dev/md0
Segmentation fault
and dmesg shows :
md: md0 stopped.
mdadm 1.12 shows :
]# mdadm -A /dev/md0
mdadm: /dev/md0 has been started with 15 drives.
after i start the md0 with mdadm 1.12, it looks like 2.2 is
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Andrew Burgess wrote:
i recovered my raid by using dd_rescue the last failed disk to a spare
disk (with 4 read errors)
(and doing a mdadm -A -force)
(so I should have a corrupted file somewhere?)
Or a corrupted filesystem, which e2fsck will find fix.
filesystem is
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Nicola Fankhauser wrote:
the array (reading the first 8GiB from /dev/md0 with dd, bs=1024K) performs
at about 174MiB/s, accessing the array through LVM2 (still with bs=1024K)
only 86MiB/s.
Nicola,
which kernel are you using ?
2.4 vs 2.6 performance on my machine (and same
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Nicola Fankhauser wrote:
hi
On Sun, 2005-03-06 at 15:25, Stephan van Hienen wrote:
which kernel are you using ?
currently 2.6.8.
2.4:
write 100MB/s
read 140MB/s
2.6
write 100MB/s
read 280MB/s
are you sure that 2.6 gives you better read performance than 2.4? it's
been reported
