From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roman Mamedov Subject: Re: Bitmap in RAM? Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 21:02:16 +0500 Message-ID: <20161008210216.1a3fead2@natsu> References: <57F8EC82.9010804@yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Sig_/bo.XfG..C9vJtj6XVMGu=Ey"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <57F8EC82.9010804@yandex.ru> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dark Penguin Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_/bo.XfG..C9vJtj6XVMGu=Ey Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 8 Oct 2016 15:54:26 +0300 Dark Penguin wrote: > So if I were to place it on a tmpfs, I could eliminate this problem only= =20 > at the expense of being unable to re-add drives after a reboot, right?..= =20 If you don't need that ability, you can just remove bitmap entirely, it's n= ot mandatory. Run: mdadm --grow --bitmap=3Dnone /dev/mdX However I'd say being able to re-add drives is very useful, so first consid= er switching to a higher bitmap granularity,=20 mdadm --grow --bitmap=3Dnone /dev/mdX mdadm --grow --bitmap=3Dinternal --bitmap-chunk=3D131072 /dev/mdX (or even 262144, 524288) as that will reduce the performance impact of the bitmap. --=20 With respect, Roman --Sig_/bo.XfG..C9vJtj6XVMGu=Ey Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlf5GIsACgkQTLKSvz+PZwgjNwCeJd8bmRxnozCBlnphYvUwij4B lLgAn0d4SjjRSq6hxvq94qc+5cIGJKmK =u7yZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/bo.XfG..C9vJtj6XVMGu=Ey--