Re: [linux-lvm] Mirroring implementation

From: brem belguebli <brem.belguebli@gmail.com>
To: LVM general discussion and development <linux-lvm@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Mirroring implementation
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:50:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <29ae894c0907280650h4dc525bbn4a808366ae8935cb@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52F0ADF3-B499-4EE4-BDA1-B8DED2C9BD42@karlsbakk.net>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1407 bytes --]

Hi Roy,

I would be better indeed, but practically, even if it is supposed to request
both disks (san arrays) in //, the closest array  will almost always be the
first to answer unless it is overloaded.

What I'm looking for is the behaviour for writes, as I don't want to deal
with failure scenarios in which I could find outdated data on my last
remaining mirror leg.

2009/7/28, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <roy@karlsbakk.net>:
>
> On 27. juli. 2009, at 15.56, malahal@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> It writes in parallel. Reads from a single device (switches on a device
>> failure only).
>>
>
>
> Wouldn't it be better to read in parallel, from different places? I've
> heard some controllers can do this, so that the reading will be somehow like
> reading from a RAID-0 stripe.
>
> roy
> --
> Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
> (+47) 97542685
> roy@karlsbakk.net
> http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/
> --
> I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det
> er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av
> idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate
> og relevante synonymer på norsk.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2658 bytes --]