Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*swidth\s+with\s+mdadm\s+and\s+RAID6\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*swidth\s+with\s+mdadm\s+and\s+RAID6\s*$/: 38 ]

Total 38 documents matching your query.

1. swidth with mdadm and RAID6 (score: 1): Author: Steve Cousins <cousins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:07:07 -0400 (EDT); == meta-data=/dev/md0 isize=256 agcount=32, agsize=30524160 blks = sectsz=4096 attr=0 data = bsize=4096 blocks=976772992, imaxpct=25 = sunit=16 swidth=144 blks, unwritten=1 naming =version 2 bsize=40; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00068.html (9,277 bytes)
2. Re: swidth with mdadm and RAID6 (score: 1): Author: pg_xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi); Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:49:34 +0100; Worrying about the impact on performance of a relatively small thing like 'swidth' for something like an 8+2 RAID6 is quite funny. http://WWW.BAARF.com/; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00069.html (8,778 bytes)
3. Re: swidth with mdadm and RAID6 (score: 1): Author: Shailendra Tripathi <stripathi@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:20:48 +0530; Can you list the output of 1. cat /proc/mdstat 2. the command to create 8+2 RAID6 with one spare ? 3. and output of following: xfs_db -r /dev/md* xfs_db> sb xfs_db> p -shailendra Steve Cousins wrote:; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00073.html (10,671 bytes)
4. Re: swidth with mdadm and RAID6 (score: 1): Author: Steve Cousins <cousins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:33:34 -0400 (EDT); Hi Shailendra, Here is the info: 1. [root@juno ~]# cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid6] md0 : active raid6 sdb[0] sdl[10](S) sdk[9] sdj[8] sdi[7] sdh[6] sdg[5] sdf[4] sde[3] sdd[2] sdc[1] 3907091; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00076.html (12,885 bytes)
5. Re: swidth with mdadm and RAID6 (score: 1): Author: Shailendra Tripathi <stripathi@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:40:50 +0530; Hi Steve, I checked the code and it appears that XFS is not *aware* of RAID6. Basically, for all md devices, it gets the volume info by making a an ioctl call. I can see that XFS only take care of le; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00077.html (14,602 bytes)
6. Re: swidth with mdadm and RAID6 (score: 1): Author: Shailendra Tripathi <stripathi@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:49:17 +0530; Hi Steve, Both of us are using old xfsprogs. It is handled in new xfsprogs. */ switch (md.level) { case 6: md.nr_disks--; /* fallthrough */ case 5: case 4: md.nr_disks--; /* fallthrough */ case 1: ca; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00078.html (15,570 bytes)
7. Re: swidth with mdadm and RAID6 (score: 1): Author: Steve Cousins <cousins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:28:05 -0400 (EDT); Thanks very much Shailendra. I'll give it a try. Steve ______________________________________________________________________ Steve Cousins, Ocean Modeling Group Email: cousins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Marine; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00079.html (19,357 bytes)
8. Re: swidth with mdadm and RAID6 (score: 1): Author: Steve Cousins <cousins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:44:59 -0400 (EDT); Hi again, Still no luck with 2.8.11: [root@juno xfsprogs-2.8.11]# cd mkfs [root@juno mkfs]# ./mkfs.xfs -f /dev/md0 meta-data=/dev/md0 isize=256 agcount=32, agsize=30524160 blks = sectsz=4096 attr=0 d; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00080.html (20,210 bytes)
9. Re: swidth with mdadm and RAID6 (score: 1): Author: Shailendra Tripathi <stripathi@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 02:36:38 +0530; Since I have a spare in there do you think it is starting with md.nr_disks = 11 and then subtracting two? You can verify that very quickly by removing the spare_disks option and see it gives proper; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00082.html (11,217 bytes)
10. Re: swidth with mdadm and RAID6 (score: 1): Author: Shailendra Tripathi <stripathi@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 03:43:51 +0530; Hi Steve, Your guess appears to be correct. md_ioctl returns nr which is total number of disk in the array including the spare disks. However, XFS function md_get_vol_stripe does not take spare disk; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00085.html (13,319 bytes)
11. Re: swidth with mdadm and RAID6 (score: 1): Author: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:11:58 +1000; Hi Shailendra and Steve, Shailendra Tripathi wrote: Hi Steve, Your guess appears to be correct. md_ioctl returns nr which is total number of disk in the array including the spare disks. However, XFS; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00088.html (12,164 bytes)
12. Re: swidth with mdadm and RAID6 (score: 1): Author: Shailendra Tripathi <stripathi@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:14:36 +0530; Hi Tim, I'm not that au fait with RAID and md, but looking at what you wrote, Shailendra, and the md code, instead of your suggestions (what I think are your suggestions:) of: (1) subtracting parity; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00089.html (10,865 bytes)
13. Re: swidth with mdadm and RAID6 (score: 1): Author: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 17:02:47 +1000; Shailendra Tripathi wrote: Hi Tim, I'm not that au fait with RAID and md, but looking at what you wrote, Shailendra, and the md code, instead of your suggestions (what I think are your suggestions:); /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00090.html (11,288 bytes)
14. Re: swidth with mdadm and RAID6 (score: 1): Author: Shailendra Tripathi <stripathi@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:28:40 +0530; Hi Shailendra, I ran the program and it reports: Level 6, disks=11 spare_disks=1 raid_disks=10 which looks good. I don't understand why you got: Level 5, disks=7 spare_disks=3 raid_disks=5 Why would; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00095.html (9,591 bytes)
15. Re: swidth with mdadm and RAID6 (score: 1): Author: Steve Cousins <cousins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:36:20 -0400 (EDT); Hi Shailendra, I ran the program and it reports: Level 6, disks=11 spare_disks=1 raid_disks=10 which looks good. I don't understand why you got: Level 5, disks=7 spare_disks=3 raid_disks=5 Why would; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00096.html (14,293 bytes)
16. Re: swidth with mdadm and RAID6 (score: 1): Author: Steve Cousins <cousins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:13:02 -0400 (EDT); I don't understand why we should expect parity disks to be included as spare disks. Steve; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00097.html (15,326 bytes)
17. Re: swidth with mdadm and RAID6 (score: 1): Author: Steve Cousins <cousins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:22:16 -0400 (EDT); I ended up just adding: md.nr_disks = md.raid_disks; right be fore the switch statement and it worked fine in my situation. Not sure how this would work with other kernels etc. but I'll let you figur; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00098.html (9,120 bytes)
18. Re: swidth with mdadm and RAID6 (score: 1): Author: Steve Cousins <cousins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:52:45 -0400 (EDT); This is a 2.6.17 kernel. So, with this in mind, is there a change that I should try in libdisk/md.c? Tim had suggested: s/nr_disks/raid_disks/ Would this be sufficient? Or should nr_disks be initiali; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00099.html (9,644 bytes)
19. Re: swidth with mdadm and RAID6 (score: 1): Author: Shailendra Tripathi <stripathi@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:49:51 +0530; Steve Cousins wrote: a 2.6.17 kernel. So, with this in mind, is there a change that I should try in libdisk/md.c? Tim had suggested: s/nr_disks/raid_disks/ Would this be sufficient? Or should nr_disk; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00100.html (11,627 bytes)
20. swidth with mdadm and RAID6 (score: 1): Author: Steve Cousins <cousins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:07:07 -0400 (EDT); == meta-data=/dev/md0 isize=256 agcount=32, agsize=30524160 blks = sectsz=4096 attr=0 data = bsize=4096 blocks=976772992, imaxpct=25 = sunit=16 swidth=144 blks, unwritten=1 naming =version 2 bsize=40; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00236.html (9,277 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]