On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 03:16:13PM +, Eduardo Horvath wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Edgar Fu? wrote:
>
> > > 2- In scattered writes contained in a same slice, it allows to reduce
> > > the number of writes. With RAID 5/6 there is a advantage, the parity
> > > is written only one time for sever
Holland, thank you for your answers.
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 7:41 PM, David Holland wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 11:09:49PM +0200, Jose Luis Rodriguez Garcia wrote:
>
> It sounds like you've already decided what layer it appears in, if
> it's going to be used as a block device.
Is there other
Michael van Elst wrote:
> Right. This needs to be written differently. Instead of GETCGD_SOFTC()
> use:
>
> cs = getcgd_softc(bp->b_dev);
> if (!cs) {
> bp->b_error = ENXIO;
> biodone(bp);
> return;
> }
I enabled DEBUG in the config and ch
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 13:54:34 +0200, Edgar Fuß wrote:
>> 4- Faster synchronous writes.
> Y E S.
> This is the only point I fully aggree on. We've had severe problems with
> brain-dead software (Firefox, Dropbox) performing tons of synchronous 4K
> writes (on a bs=16K FFS) which nearly killed us un
>> 1- There is no need to use parity map for the RAID 1/10/5/6. Usually
>> the impact is small, but it can be noticeable in busy servers.
>I don't notice it.
When there is a crash, the time to rebuild the raid < 1min?
...
>rather large. A segment should match a slice (or a number of them)
>I would
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Edgar Fu? wrote:
> > 2- In scattered writes contained in a same slice, it allows to reduce
> > the number of writes. With RAID 5/6 there is a advantage, the parity
> > is written only one time for several writes in the same slice, instead
> > of one time for every write in the
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:54:34PM +0200, Edgar Fuß wrote:
> [...]
> I would suppose LFS to perform great on a RAIDframe. Isn't Manuel Bouyer
> using this in production?
No, I played with LFS at some point but I never used it in production.
--
Manuel Bouyer
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience fer
I'm using a 12TB RAIDframe Level 5 RAID (4+1 discs) in production.
There are 150 people's home directories and mail on FFFs file systems on it.
> 1- There is no need to use parity map for the RAID 1/10/5/6. Usually
> the impact is small, but it can be noticeable in busy servers.
I don't notice it.
Michael van Elst wrote:
> Right. This needs to be written differently. Instead of GETCGD_SOFTC()
> use:
>
> cs = getcgd_softc(bp->b_dev);
> if (!cs) {
> bp->b_error = ENXIO;
> biodone(bp);
> return;
> }
I tried something similar but with
