On 26 June 2012 14:18, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:49:32 +0800 Igor M Podlesny <for.poige+lsr@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: […] >> Here it is: http://pastie.org/4118133 > > This doesn't appear to show the "start to end" that I suggested, just 10% to > 30%, but it does suggest that the bitmap isn't speeding things up at all, at > least for that part of the array... That is assuming you are talking about Well, I decided that's enough to be "pasted", but anyway, I can assure you — it took ~ 1 hour, as it was estimated, so yeah — no use of bitmap. For sure. > md124. I note that md125 doesn't have a bitmap. Is that what you are > referring to? Yeah, md125 is legacy RAID which is not being in use for a long time, it's just hanging around till re-layout happens. > > The next thing to do would be to look at the bitmap immediately after reboot > to see how many bits are set. Maybe lots are set for some reason. > >> >> — 3.4.2-rt10 went suspend ok for 2 times, the 3rd it didn't. >> Reboot, resync, no bitmaps use. >> >> And, BTW, it's rather slow in despite of having max. stripe_cache_size set. >> > > A larger stripe cache isn't going to affect resync speed much (I think). > 50MB/sec on each drive seems fairly good to me. What were you expecting? I see, thanks. -- -- 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
