Neil Brown wrote:
On Monday November 12, davidsen@xxxxxxx wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
However there is value in regularly updating the bitmap, so add code
to periodically pause while all pending sync requests complete, then
update the bitmap. Doing this only every few seconds (the same as the
bitmap update time) does not notciable affect resync performance.
I wonder if a minimum time and minimum number of stripes would be
better. If a resync is going slowly because it's going over a slow link
to iSCSI, nbd, or a box of cheap drives fed off a single USB port, just
writing the updated bitmap may represent as much data as has been
resynced in the time slice.
Not a suggestion, but a request for your thoughts on that.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Choosing how often to update the bitmap during a sync is certainly not
trivial. In different situations, different requirements might rule.
I chose to base it on time, and particularly on the time we already
have for "how soon to write back clean bits to the bitmap" because it
is fairly easy to users to understand the implications (if I set the
time to 30 seconds, then I might have to repeat 30second of resync)
and it is already configurable (via the "--delay" option to --create
--bitmap).
Sounds right, that part of it is pretty user friendly.
Presumably if someone has a very slow system and wanted to use
bitmaps, they would set --delay relatively large to reduce the cost
and still provide significant benefits. This would effect both normal
clean-bit writeback and during-resync clean-bit-writeback.
Hope that clarifies my approach.
Easy to implement and understand is always a strong point, and a user
can make an informed decision. Thanks for the discussion.
--
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-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
