Re: limits on raid

[Bill Davidsen]

david@xxxxxxx wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
>
> > It would be possible to have a 'this is not initialised' flag on the
> > array, and if that is not set, always do a reconstruct-write rather
> > than a read-modify-write.  But the first time you have an unclean
> > shutdown you are going to resync all the parity anyway (unless you
> > have a bitmap....) so you may as well resync at the start.
> >
> > And why is it such a big deal anyway?  The initial resync doesn't stop
> > you from using the array.  I guess if you wanted to put an array into
> > production instantly and couldn't afford any slowdown due to resync,
> > then you might want to skip the initial resync.... but is that really
> > likely?
>
> in my case it takes 2+ days to resync the array before I can do any 
> performance testing with it. for some reason it's only doing the 
> rebuild at ~5M/sec (even though I've increased the min and max rebuild 
> speeds and a dd to the array seems to be ~44M/sec, even during the 
> rebuild)
>
> I want to test several configurations, from a 45 disk raid6 to a 45 
> disk raid0. at 2-3 days per test (or longer, depending on the tests) 
> this becomes a very slow process.
I've been doing stuff like this, but I just build the array on a 
partition per drive so the init is livable. For the stuff I'm doing a 
total of 500-100GB is ample to do performance testing.
> also, when a rebuild is slow enough (and has enough of a performance 
> impact) it's not uncommon to want to operate in degraded mode just 
> long enought oget to a maintinance window and then recreate the array 
> and reload from backup.

--
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
 CTO TMR Associates, Inc
 Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/