on 3-26-2009 12:50 PM D Tucny spake the following: > 2009/3/27 RedShift <redshift@xxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:redshift@xxxxxxxxxx>> > > Mogens Kjaer wrote: > > RedShift wrote: > > ... > >> Not only do you > >> have to execute 4 times as much commands, reconstruction of the 4 > >> arrays will take place in parallel leading to slow disk access during > >> reconstruction. > > > > Is this right? > > > > When I have replaced a disk and added several partitions > > to an array, the rebuild is done one partition at a time. > > > > The /proc/mdstat would say "delayed" on the partitiones > > waiting. > > > > Mogens > > I must be mistaken then, it's been a long time since I've used > regular md devices. > > > I can confirm this and furthermore, the default sync max transfer rate > is very low for modern disks, so unless you've increased it to speed up > sync or you have a very heavy disk workload, it's probably not going to > impact normal disk access that much... > > That said... I'd much prefer partitionable arrays from a management > point of view... It's how all the hardware solutions work and they can't > all be wrong ;) > > d > And it would make it easier for a single hot-spare to be available to several arrays that were configured differently. -- MailScanner is like deodorant... You hope everybody uses it, and you notice quickly if they don't!!!!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
