On Wed, 08 Mar 2000, Brian Pomerantz wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 12:44:32AM +0100, Jakob Østergaard wrote:
> >
> > You don't _think_ you would see better performance ?
> >
> > I'm pretty sure you will see better performance. But on the other
> > hand, with a large number of disks, sometim
Hi:
Benny HO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tried to setup up raid on my linux. However it did not work.
>
> I am trying to setup a linear mode to expand my drive.
>
> I did exactly what is said in the How-to doc.
> Then I run " mkraid /dev/md0"
> It returns
> Destorying the contents of the /de
I tried to setup up raid on my linux. However it did not work.
I am trying to setup a linear mode to expand my drive.
I did exactly what is said in the How-to doc.
Then I run " mkraid /dev/md0"
It returns
Destorying the contents of the /dev/md0 in 5 seconds..
Handling MD device /dev/md0
anal
If the system in question is idle, I would agree that a modern single or
dual processor machine probably has plenty of spare cycles to calculate
parity. However, odds are that the machine is doing real work (or you
wouldn't care about RAID 5 and would just use RAID 0) AND has valuable data.
If it
Johan,
This is what is happening...
1. You rebooted
2. The raid volume is started, and since it isn't clean (bad shutdown)
it starts resyncing at the default 1024 byte buffer size
3. Your filesystem is mounted, and it seems to be using 4096 byte blocks.
This changes the buffer block s
On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 05:38:29PM -0800, Michael wrote:
>
> Consider that the poor little controller chip on the raid card is
> vastly underpowered for what you are asking it to do in raw IO speed
> plus handling all the raid calculations. Compare that to the excess
> number crunching capacit
On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 12:44:32AM +0100, Jakob Østergaard wrote:
>
> You don't _think_ you would see better performance ?
>
> I'm pretty sure you will see better performance. But on the other
> hand, with a large number of disks, sometimes the hot-swap
> capability comes in handy, and sometime
Brian Pomerantz wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 06:52:52PM -, Matthew Clark wrote:
> > Hmm.. well you may think 26Mb/Sec is poor for writing.. I would be drooling
> > at such vast speeds..
> >
> > Would you mind telling me how you set up your raid array (i.e. policies) and
> > filesystem (
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 09:14:02PM +0100, Holger Kiehl wrote:
> >
> > Why don't you try SW raid?
> >
>
> In the end, I don't think software RAID is an option for HPC.
Consider that the poor little controller chip on the raid card is
vastly underpowered for what you are asking it to do in r
Does this server use lilo to boot? Did you update LILO after you finsihed. If
these questions are stupid please forgive!
Jon.
Saibot wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm rather new to the linux world (only a year since I first
> put my hands in this) and I'm now assigned the task to maintain a server.
> I'm
On Wed, 08 Mar 2000, Brian Pomerantz wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 09:14:02PM +0100, Holger Kiehl wrote:
> >
> > Why don't you try SW raid?
> >
>
> The Mylex controllers I have don't do SCSI, it presents a block
> device. I think I'm going to try these drives on my NCR controller
> just to
On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 09:14:02PM +0100, Holger Kiehl wrote:
>
> Why don't you try SW raid?
>
The Mylex controllers I have don't do SCSI, it presents a block
device. I think I'm going to try these drives on my NCR controller
just to get a base-line on what kind of write performance they are
ca
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Brian Pomerantz wrote:
>
> I also use write-back, which increased the performance a bit. The
> current equipment I have is going back to Compaq in a few days but I
> already have more loaners in (they need to be installed). I'll have 4
> Mylex DAC1164P controllers and 40
On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 06:52:52PM -, Matthew Clark wrote:
> Hmm.. well you may think 26Mb/Sec is poor for writing.. I would be drooling
> at such vast speeds..
>
> Would you mind telling me how you set up your raid array (i.e. policies) and
> filesystem (inodes, block sizes, strides etc)...I
Hi there
I got hold of tiotest 0.25 and ran some standard tests and various others..
The results really confirm the poor performance..
17.2Mb/sec average Read
2.5Mb/sec average Write (sequential & random)
The logical device is configured as follows:
Size: 52095
Stripes: 4
Stripe Size: 64Kb
Wri
Hmm.. well you may think 26Mb/Sec is poor for writing.. I would be drooling
at such vast speeds..
Would you mind telling me how you set up your raid array (i.e. policies) and
filesystem (inodes, block sizes, strides etc)...I'm seeing 2M/b per sec on
writes and only 16-17mb/sec on reads.. sequenti
[ Tuesday, March 7, 2000 ] Matthew Clark wrote:
> Hey guys.. I just installed and ran iozone.. neat tool..
>
> When the file size reaches 32Mb, I see a huge drop from around 129Mb/sec
> (obviously caching effects) right down to 10Mb/sec... then at 64Mb it drops
> to between 2.5 and 6.7 Mb/sec de
It was sequential using a modified Bonnie benchmark with multiple
processes running (though I was getting around the same performance
using the raw device using a program I wrote). I was writing 10GB
files to each device, so that should get rid of any cache usage. This
is on an ES40 (Quad 500MHz
Hello,
I'm rather new to the linux world (only a year since I first
put my hands in this) and I'm now assigned the task to maintain a server.
I'm right now having a problem with RAID (software raid that is). it
didn't work with the previous versions so I tried with the new version of
the raidpatc
How can I quit this mailinglist?
Philipp Krause
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
After crashes I see a lot of these messages (RAID5):
www3 kernel: ll_rw_block: device 09:00: only 4096-char blocks implemented
(1024)
www3 last message repeated 226 times
www3 kernel: md0: blocksize changed during write
What do they actually mean?
The first one (only 4096-char blocks implemented
Under what circumstances are you "only" achieving 26MB/s - what file size?
was it random or sequential?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Brian Pomerantz
> Sent: 08 March 2000 05:07
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Benchmarking..
22 matches
Mail list logo
