From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263447AbTDCVH7 (for ); Thu, 3 Apr 2003 16:07:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263444AbTDCVH7 (for ); Thu, 3 Apr 2003 16:07:59 -0500 Received: from popmail.goshen.edu ([199.8.232.22]:15258 "EHLO mail.goshen.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263440AbTDCVHz (for ); Thu, 3 Apr 2003 16:07:55 -0500 Subject: Re: RAID 5 performance problems From: Ezra Nugroho To: Jonathan Vardy Cc: Andy Arvai , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <004901c2fa25$795b5d80$2e77c23e@pentium4> References: <200304031949.LAA28555@astra.scripps.edu> <004901c2fa25$795b5d80$2e77c23e@pentium4> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-9.7x.1) Date: 03 Apr 2003 16:31:39 -0500 Message-Id: <1049405499.22426.5184.camel@ezran.goshen.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org That looks like a slow build! Mine is about 15 - 20M/sec. Another observation I saw, I raided the raw devices instead of the partitions; meaning my array is build from hde, hdg, hdi and hdk as opposed to hde1, hdg1, hdi1 and hdk1. On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 16:10, Jonathan Vardy wrote: > you're right, it should be. When I was writing the original mail I had it > running in degraded mode so I edited the values that /proc/mdstat gave me to > match the array in normal mode. I forgot to make [_UUUU] [UUUUU]. I'm > currently rebuilding the array but it's taking some time... > > md0 : active raid5 hdc1[5] hdk1[4] hdi1[3] hdg1[2] hde1[1] > 468872704 blocks level 5, 128k chunk, algorithm 0 [5/4] [_UUUU] > [================>....] recovery = 83.1% (97429504/117218176) > finish=65.5min speed=5034K/sec > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andy Arvai" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 9:49 PM > Subject: Re: RAID 5 performance problems > > > > > > Shouldn't /proc/mdstat have [UUUUU] instead of [_UUUU]? Perhaps > > this is running in degraded mode. Also, you have 'algorithm 0', > > whereas my raid5 has 'algorithm 2', which is the left-symmetric > > parity algorithm. > > > > Andy > > > > > cat /proc/mdstat gives: > > > > > > Personalities : [raid0] [raid5] > > > read_ahead 1024 sectors > > > md0 : active raid5 hdk1[4] hdi1[3] hdg1[2] hde1[1] hdc1[0] > > > 468872704 blocks level 5, 128k chunk, algorithm 0 [5/5] [_UUUU] > > > unused devices: > > > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/