2010/1/28 Gabor Gombas <gombasg@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 09:31:23AM -0500, Yuehai Xu wrote: > >> >> md0 : active raid5 sdh1[7] sdg1[5] sdf1[4] sde1[3] sdd1[2] sdc1[1] sdb1[0] >> >> 631353600 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [7/6] [UUUUUU_] > [...] > >> I don't think any of my drive fail because there is no "F" in my >> /proc/mdstat output > > It's not failed, it's simply missing. Either it was unavailable when the > array was assembled, or you've explicitely created/assembled the array > with a missing drive. I noticed that, thanks! Is it usual that at the beginning of each setup, there is one missing drive? > >> How do you know my RAID5 array has one drive missing? > > Look at the above output: there are just 6 of the 7 drives available, > and the underscore also means a missing drive. > >> I tried to setup RAID5 with 5 disks, 3 disks, after each setup, >> recovery has always been done. > > Of course. > >> However, if I format my md0 with such command: >> mkfs.ext3 -b 4096 -E stride=16 -E stripe-width=*** /dev/XXXX, the >> performance for RAID5 becomes usual, at about 200~300M/s. > > I suppose in that case you had all the disks present in the array. Yes, I did my test after the recovery, in that case, does the "missing drive" hurt the performance? Thanks! Yuehai > > Gabor > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------- > MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute > Hungarian Academy of Sciences > --------------------------------------------------------- > -- 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
