Re: possible bug with RAID

• Next message: Hugh Dickins: "Re: 2.4.16 memory badness (reproducible)"
• Previous message: Stas Sergeev: "Oops in 2.2.20, 100% reproduceable and fully tracked"
• Next in thread: Steve Lord: "Re: possible bug with RAID"
• Reply: Steve Lord: "Re: possible bug with RAID"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> it would be interesting to write a simple benchmark
> that simply reads a file at a fixed rate. *that* would
> actually simulate your app.

sure. I'm using tux+wget for that. I were just playing around with dd

> sounds like a VM/balance problem. you didn't mention which kernel
> you're using.

2.4.16 w/tux + xfs. The fs used on the raid vol is xfs

> > I tried to do the bechmark with the individual drives, and no problem
> > there...
>
> much less bandwidth, and therefore VM pressure.

ok

--
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, MCSE, MCNE, CLS, LCA
Computers are like air conditioners.
They stop working when you open Windows.
-
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/

• Next message: Hugh Dickins: "Re: 2.4.16 memory badness (reproducible)"
• Previous message: Stas Sergeev: "Oops in 2.2.20, 100% reproduceable and fully tracked"
• Next in thread: Steve Lord: "Re: possible bug with RAID"
• Reply: Steve Lord: "Re: possible bug with RAID"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 15 2001 - 21:00:21 EST