Followup to: <200407302311.04942.maarten@xxxxxxxxxxxx> By author: maarten van den Berg <maarten@xxxxxxxxxxxx> In newsgroup: linux.dev.raid > > I'm still early in the testing phase, so nothing to report as yet. > But I have a question: I tried to reproduce a reported issue when creating a > degraded raid6 array. But when I created a raid6 array with one disk > missing, /proc/mdstat reported no resync going on. Am I not correct in > assuming that raid6 with 1 missing drive should at least start resyncing the > other drive(s) ? It would only be really degraded with two missing drives... > This is correct; when an array is first created it needs resync, and with less than two drives missing this should happen. > So instead, I defined a full raid6 array which it is now resyncing... > My resync speed is rather slow (6000K/sec). I'll have to compare it to > resyncing a raid5 array though before concluding anything from that. Cause > this system is somewhat CPU challenged indeed: a lowly celeron 500. The RAID-6 computations on that system will be quite slow indeed. At least you have MMX. -hpa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
