> > Thanks for testing. > > I'd like to suggest that these results are fairly reasonable for the > numjobs=64 case. Certainly read-speed is reduced by presumably resync > speed is increased. > The numbers for numjob=1 are appalling though. That would generally > affect any synchronous load. As the synchronous load doesn't interfere > much with the resync load, the delays that are inserted won't be very > long. > > I feel there must be an answer here - I just cannot find it. > I'd like to be able to dynamically estimate the bandwidth of the array > and use (say) 10% of that, but I cannot think of a way to do that at all > reliably. > > I'll ponder it a bit longer. We may need to ultimately revert that > patch, but not yet. > > Thanks, > NeilBrown Hello Neil, This issue about competing between sync IO and non-sync IO is a trade-off question and need to consider deeply and widely. Thanks for your advice. If any progress about this, please let me know first. I'm happy that I can provide my test results for community. Thanks again, Chien Lee -- 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
