On Sun November 1 2009, NeilBrown wrote: > On Mon, November 2, 2009 6:41 am, Thomas Fjellstrom wrote: > > On Sun November 1 2009, Andrew Dunn wrote: > >> Are we to expect some resolution in newer kernels? > > > > I assume all of the new per-bdi-writeback work going on in .33+ will > > have a > > large impact. At least I'm hoping. > > > >> I am going to rebuild my array (backup data and re-create) to modify > >> the chunk size this week. I hope to get a much higher performance when > >> increasing from 64k chunk size to 1024k. > >> > >> Is there a way to modify chunk size in place or does the array need to > >> be re-created? > > > > This I'm not sure about. I'd like to be able to reshape to a new chunk > > size > > for testing. > > Reshaping to a new chunksize is possible with the latest mdadm and > kernel, but I would recommend waiting for mdadm-3.1.1 and 2.6.32. > With the current code, a device failure during reshape followed by an > unclean shutdown while reshape is happening can lead to unrecoverable > data loss. Even a clean shutdown before the shape finishes in that case > might be a problem. That's good to know. Though I'm stuck with 2.6.26 till the performance regressions in the io and scheduling subsystems are solved. > NeilBrown > > -- > 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 > -- Thomas Fjellstrom tfjellstrom@xxxxxxx -- 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
