On 26 June 2012 16:55, Igor M Podlesny <for.poige+lsr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. That would more than unlikely due to: — it's prepended with several sync-sleeps — there's no intensive I/O — kernel should have flush all buffers on suspend as well -- -- 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
