On Wednesday November 3, AndyLiebman@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > neilb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> >
> > Hmmm... I might work with 1.6 if you --build that raid0 (rather than
> > --create), or if you are using a 64bit processor like alpha or ia64.
> > But mdadm 1.6 definitely have problems in i386 processors when you try
> > to --create a raid0 with devices larger than 2 terabytes.
>
> I have been using "mdadm -Cv /dev/md0 -n2 -l0 -c[256 or 512] /dev/sd{a,b}"
> without incident. But I'll switch over to 1.8.
Very odd. Is this on a 2.4 or a 2.6 linux kernel??
>
> Was the previous problem only one of creating the arrays? Or could there be
> further problems down the line with my arrays that were created with
> 1.6?
If your arrays were successfully created and appear to be working,
they should be fine and should continue to work.
NeilBrown
>
> By the way, do you know anybody with enough understanding of the Linux kernel
> to be able to rationally and logically tune the following items, which all
> relate to one another and MUST have some optimum settings for low-latency/high
> throughput over a network.
>
> * chunk size/stripe size of Hardware and Software arrays
> * blockdev --setra (for each Hardware array)
> * blockdev --setra (for each Linux Software array on top of Hardware)
> * tcp items in /proc/sys/net/core and /proc/sys/net/ipv4 like rmem_max,
> wmem_max and the like
>
> Regards,
> Andy Liebman
-
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
