From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miles Fidelman Subject: Re: RAID6 and crashes (reporting back re. --bitmap) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 00:46:47 -0400 Message-ID: <4C11BFB7.7050907@meetinghouse.net> References: <4C1128C2.4020105@meetinghouse.net> <20100611005743.43664e5b@natsu> <4C11578B.8010202@meetinghouse.net> <20100611034108.6a2cdbc4@natsu> <4C1169CB.1030903@meetinghouse.net> <20100611085112.5f33b06f@natsu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100611085112.5f33b06f@natsu> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Roman Mamedov wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:40:11 -0400 > Miles Fidelman wrote: > > >> Yes... went with internal. >> >> I'll keep an eye on write performance. Do you happen to know, off hand, >> a magic incantation to change the bitmap-chunk size? (Do I need to >> remove the bitmap I just set up and reinstall one with the larger chunk >> size?) >> > Remove (--bitmap=none) then add again with new --bitmap-chunk. > > Looks like my original --bitmap internal creation set a very large chunk size initially md3 : active raid6 sda4[0] sdd4[3] sdc4[2] sdb4[1] 947417088 blocks level 6, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] [UUUU] bitmap: 6/226 pages [24KB], 1024KB chunk unless that --bitmap-chunk=131072 recommendation is translates to 131072KB (if so, are you really running 131MB chunks?) Miles -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra