From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?Q?Rainer_F=C3=BCgenstein?= Subject: Re: performance issue (was: Re: kernel: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 60s!) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 20:23:37 +0100 Message-ID: <16514313.20151025202337@oudeis.org> References: <1092031595.20151015153830@oudeis.org> <87si5bvcj4.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <43246687.20151024181541@oudeis.org> <20151024213139.5b20dec6@natsu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20151024213139.5b20dec6@natsu> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Roman Mamedov Cc: Neil Brown , Linux-RAID List-Id: linux-raid.ids Hello Roman, Saturday, October 24, 2015, 6:31:39 PM, you wrote: > Use a higher bitmap-chunk size, such as 256M or more. I guess that would be mdadm --grow /dev/md0 --bitmap-chunk=256M ?? is it wise to issue this command during a re-sync? a cron.weekly job started the re-sync (although I'm pretty sure this job has been disabled quite some time ago) $ cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] md0 : active raid5 sdb1[7] sdf1[3] sdc1[5] sde1[0] sdd1[8] 11721061376 blocks super 1.2 level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [5/5] [UUUUU] [==>..................] resync = 11.9% (348948608/2930265344) finish=7771.1min speed=5533K/sec bitmap: 8/350 pages [32KB], 4096KB chunk unused devices: tnx & cu -- Best regards, Rainer mailto:rfu@oudeis.org