* Fwd: Re: Device utilization with RAID-1
@ 2011-08-18 0:26 Harald Nikolisin
2011-08-18 1:42 ` NeilBrown
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Harald Nikolisin @ 2011-08-18 0:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-raid
hi,
I didn't want to complain in general about SW RAID-1 performance. I
simply think something is wrong with my setup and I have currently no
idea how to improve.
The basic questions (where I did not find an answer, neither in FAQ's
nor in forum discussions) are.
a) Is it normal that the hard drives show an permanent utilization
(around 20%) without any noticeable actions on the computer?
b) Should (as long as no resync happens) the state of mdadm active or clean?
cheers,
harald
well, I have only 2 hard drives and no space for more..
Am 16.08.2011 03:29, schrieb Roberto Spadim:
> try raid10 far layout
>
> 2011/8/15 Harald Nikolisin <hochglanz@gmail.com
> <mailto:hochglanz@gmail.com>>
>
> Since a long time I'm unhappy with the performance of my RAID-1 system.
> Investigation with atop and iostat unveils that the disk utilization is
> always on a certain level although nothing happens on the system. In the
> case of reading or writing files the utilization boosts always to 100%
> for a long time. Very ugly examples are "Firefox starting" or "zypper
> updates".
> That is snapshot of the output of iostat:
>
>
> Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s
> avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util
> sda 0,00 0,00 0,00 7,33 0,00 43,33
> 5,91 0,33 43,18 33,32 24,43
> sdb 0,00 0,00 0,00 7,33 0,00 43,33
> 5,91 0,35 45,59 39,73 29,13
> md0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,67 0,00 5,33
> 8,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
> md1 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,33 0,00 5,33
> 16,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
> md2 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,33 0,00 1,00
> 3,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
> md3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
> 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
> md4 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
> 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
> md5 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,33 0,00 0,67
> 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
>
> I checked with mdadm if a resync happens or so, but this is not the
> case. The state says "active" on all RAID devices - btw. what is the
> difference to "clean" ?
>
> thanks for any hints,
> harald
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> <mailto:majordomo@vger.kernel.org>
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
>
>
> --
> Roberto Spadim
> Spadim Technology / SPAEmpresarial
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: Device utilization with RAID-1 2011-08-18 0:26 Fwd: Re: Device utilization with RAID-1 Harald Nikolisin @ 2011-08-18 1:42 ` NeilBrown 2011-08-18 6:44 ` Stefan /*St0fF*/ Hübner 2011-08-18 13:44 ` CoolCold 0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: NeilBrown @ 2011-08-18 1:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: hochglanz; +Cc: hochglanz, linux-raid On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 02:26:17 +0200 Harald Nikolisin <hochglanz@gmail.com> wrote: > hi, > > I didn't want to complain in general about SW RAID-1 performance. I > simply think something is wrong with my setup and I have currently no > idea how to improve. > > The basic questions (where I did not find an answer, neither in FAQ's > nor in forum discussions) are. > a) Is it normal that the hard drives show an permanent utilization > (around 20%) without any noticeable actions on the computer? No. If the array is resyncing or recovering then you would expect utilization for as many hours as it takes - but that would show in /proc/mdstat. > b) Should (as long as no resync happens) the state of mdadm active or clean? If anything has been written to the device in the last 200msec (including e.g. access time updates) then expect it to be 'active'. If nothing has been written for 200msecc or more, then expect it to be clean. If you crash while it is active, a resync is needed. If you crash while it is clean, no resync is needed. If you don't crash at all .... that is best :-) NeilBrown > > cheers, > harald > > well, I have only 2 hard drives and no space for more.. > > Am 16.08.2011 03:29, schrieb Roberto Spadim: > > try raid10 far layout > > > > 2011/8/15 Harald Nikolisin <hochglanz@gmail.com > > <mailto:hochglanz@gmail.com>> > > > > Since a long time I'm unhappy with the performance of my RAID-1 system. > > Investigation with atop and iostat unveils that the disk utilization is > > always on a certain level although nothing happens on the system. In the > > case of reading or writing files the utilization boosts always to 100% > > for a long time. Very ugly examples are "Firefox starting" or "zypper > > updates". > > That is snapshot of the output of iostat: > > > > > > Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s > > avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util > > sda 0,00 0,00 0,00 7,33 0,00 43,33 > > 5,91 0,33 43,18 33,32 24,43 > > sdb 0,00 0,00 0,00 7,33 0,00 43,33 > > 5,91 0,35 45,59 39,73 29,13 > > md0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,67 0,00 5,33 > > 8,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 > > md1 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,33 0,00 5,33 > > 16,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 > > md2 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,33 0,00 1,00 > > 3,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 > > md3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 > > 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 > > md4 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 > > 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 > > md5 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,33 0,00 0,67 > > 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 > > > > I checked with mdadm if a resync happens or so, but this is not the > > case. The state says "active" on all RAID devices - btw. what is the > > difference to "clean" ? > > > > thanks for any hints, > > harald > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > <mailto:majordomo@vger.kernel.org> > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Roberto Spadim > > Spadim Technology / SPAEmpresarial > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Device utilization with RAID-1 2011-08-18 1:42 ` NeilBrown @ 2011-08-18 6:44 ` Stefan /*St0fF*/ Hübner 2011-08-18 13:44 ` CoolCold 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Stefan /*St0fF*/ Hübner @ 2011-08-18 6:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: NeilBrown; +Cc: hochglanz, hochglanz, linux-raid Am 18.08.2011 03:42, schrieb NeilBrown: > On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 02:26:17 +0200 Harald Nikolisin <hochglanz@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> hi, >> >> I didn't want to complain in general about SW RAID-1 performance. I >> simply think something is wrong with my setup and I have currently no >> idea how to improve. >> >> The basic questions (where I did not find an answer, neither in FAQ's >> nor in forum discussions) are. >> a) Is it normal that the hard drives show an permanent utilization >> (around 20%) without any noticeable actions on the computer? > > No. If the array is resyncing or recovering then you would expect > utilization for as many hours as it takes - but that would show > in /proc/mdstat. > >> b) Should (as long as no resync happens) the state of mdadm active or clean? > > If anything has been written to the device in the last 200msec (including > e.g. access time updates) then expect it to be 'active'. > If nothing has been written for 200msecc or more, then expect it to be clean. > > If you crash while it is active, a resync is needed. > If you crash while it is clean, no resync is needed. > If you don't crash at all .... that is best :-) > > NeilBrown > I second that ;) Have you checked the SMART-Attributes of your disks, are they still OK? But if they weren't, you wouldn't see that they're a bit more busy, you'd only feel it from bad performance. Indeed I think you need to find out which processes create your I/O load, as it seems to be kind of a badly configured service/daemon which slows down your whole computer that way... It's probably a good idea to start with dstat and a wide screen :) Stefan > > >> >> cheers, >> harald >> >> well, I have only 2 hard drives and no space for more.. >> >> Am 16.08.2011 03:29, schrieb Roberto Spadim: >>> try raid10 far layout >>> >>> 2011/8/15 Harald Nikolisin <hochglanz@gmail.com >>> <mailto:hochglanz@gmail.com>> >>> >>> Since a long time I'm unhappy with the performance of my RAID-1 system. >>> Investigation with atop and iostat unveils that the disk utilization is >>> always on a certain level although nothing happens on the system. In the >>> case of reading or writing files the utilization boosts always to 100% >>> for a long time. Very ugly examples are "Firefox starting" or "zypper >>> updates". >>> That is snapshot of the output of iostat: >>> >>> >>> Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s >>> avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util >>> sda 0,00 0,00 0,00 7,33 0,00 43,33 >>> 5,91 0,33 43,18 33,32 24,43 >>> sdb 0,00 0,00 0,00 7,33 0,00 43,33 >>> 5,91 0,35 45,59 39,73 29,13 >>> md0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,67 0,00 5,33 >>> 8,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 >>> md1 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,33 0,00 5,33 >>> 16,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 >>> md2 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,33 0,00 1,00 >>> 3,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 >>> md3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 >>> 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 >>> md4 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 >>> 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 >>> md5 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,33 0,00 0,67 >>> 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 >>> >>> I checked with mdadm if a resync happens or so, but this is not the >>> case. The state says "active" on all RAID devices - btw. what is the >>> difference to "clean" ? >>> >>> thanks for any hints, >>> harald >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> <mailto:majordomo@vger.kernel.org> >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Roberto Spadim >>> Spadim Technology / SPAEmpresarial >> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Device utilization with RAID-1 2011-08-18 1:42 ` NeilBrown 2011-08-18 6:44 ` Stefan /*St0fF*/ Hübner @ 2011-08-18 13:44 ` CoolCold 2011-08-19 0:31 ` NeilBrown 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: CoolCold @ 2011-08-18 13:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: NeilBrown; +Cc: hochglanz, hochglanz, linux-raid On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 5:42 AM, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote: > On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 02:26:17 +0200 Harald Nikolisin <hochglanz@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> hi, >> >> I didn't want to complain in general about SW RAID-1 performance. I >> simply think something is wrong with my setup and I have currently no >> idea how to improve. >> >> The basic questions (where I did not find an answer, neither in FAQ's >> nor in forum discussions) are. >> a) Is it normal that the hard drives show an permanent utilization >> (around 20%) without any noticeable actions on the computer? > > No. If the array is resyncing or recovering then you would expect > utilization for as many hours as it takes - but that would show > in /proc/mdstat. > >> b) Should (as long as no resync happens) the state of mdadm active or clean? > > If anything has been written to the device in the last 200msec (including > e.g. access time updates) then expect it to be 'active'. > If nothing has been written for 200msecc or more, then expect it to be clean. > > If you crash while it is active, a resync is needed. > If you crash while it is clean, no resync is needed. > If you don't crash at all .... that is best :-) I think this info should be wikified if not yet. btw, I've experimented a bit on my /boot array (it doesn't being updated, checked with iostat ), and: root@m2:~# for i in {1..5};do mdname="md0"; echo "iteration $i"; (mdadm --detail /dev/$mdname|grep 'State ';cat /sys/block/$mdname/md/array_state;grep "$mdname :" /proc/mdstat);sleep 1;done iteration 1 State : clean clean md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1] iteration 2 State : clean clean md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1] iteration 3 State : clean clean md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1] iteration 4 State : clean clean md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1] iteration 5 State : clean clean md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1] so, mdadm --detail & array_state shows array is "clean", while /proc/mdstat shows array is "active" (no reads/writes happen). Some value is lieing or being misunderdstanded by me... > > > >> >> cheers, >> harald >> >> well, I have only 2 hard drives and no space for more.. >> >> Am 16.08.2011 03:29, schrieb Roberto Spadim: >> > try raid10 far layout >> > >> > 2011/8/15 Harald Nikolisin <hochglanz@gmail.com >> > <mailto:hochglanz@gmail.com>> >> > >> > Since a long time I'm unhappy with the performance of my RAID-1 system. >> > Investigation with atop and iostat unveils that the disk utilization is >> > always on a certain level although nothing happens on the system. In the >> > case of reading or writing files the utilization boosts always to 100% >> > for a long time. Very ugly examples are "Firefox starting" or "zypper >> > updates". >> > That is snapshot of the output of iostat: >> > >> > >> > Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s >> > avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util >> > sda 0,00 0,00 0,00 7,33 0,00 43,33 >> > 5,91 0,33 43,18 33,32 24,43 >> > sdb 0,00 0,00 0,00 7,33 0,00 43,33 >> > 5,91 0,35 45,59 39,73 29,13 >> > md0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,67 0,00 5,33 >> > 8,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 >> > md1 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,33 0,00 5,33 >> > 16,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 >> > md2 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,33 0,00 1,00 >> > 3,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 >> > md3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 >> > 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 >> > md4 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 >> > 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 >> > md5 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,33 0,00 0,67 >> > 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 >> > >> > I checked with mdadm if a resync happens or so, but this is not the >> > case. The state says "active" on all RAID devices - btw. what is the >> > difference to "clean" ? >> > >> > thanks for any hints, >> > harald >> > -- >> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in >> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> > <mailto:majordomo@vger.kernel.org> >> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Roberto Spadim >> > Spadim Technology / SPAEmpresarial >> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Best regards, [COOLCOLD-RIPN] -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Device utilization with RAID-1 2011-08-18 13:44 ` CoolCold @ 2011-08-19 0:31 ` NeilBrown 2011-08-19 18:32 ` maurice 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: NeilBrown @ 2011-08-19 0:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: CoolCold; +Cc: hochglanz, hochglanz, linux-raid On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:44:19 +0400 CoolCold <coolthecold@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 5:42 AM, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 02:26:17 +0200 Harald Nikolisin <hochglanz@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> hi, > >> > >> I didn't want to complain in general about SW RAID-1 performance. I > >> simply think something is wrong with my setup and I have currently no > >> idea how to improve. > >> > >> The basic questions (where I did not find an answer, neither in FAQ's > >> nor in forum discussions) are. > >> a) Is it normal that the hard drives show an permanent utilization > >> (around 20%) without any noticeable actions on the computer? > > > > No. If the array is resyncing or recovering then you would expect > > utilization for as many hours as it takes - but that would show > > in /proc/mdstat. > > > >> b) Should (as long as no resync happens) the state of mdadm active or clean? > > > > If anything has been written to the device in the last 200msec (including > > e.g. access time updates) then expect it to be 'active'. > > If nothing has been written for 200msecc or more, then expect it to be clean. > > > > If you crash while it is active, a resync is needed. > > If you crash while it is clean, no resync is needed. > > If you don't crash at all .... that is best :-) > > I think this info should be wikified if not yet. > > btw, I've experimented a bit on my /boot array (it doesn't being > updated, checked with iostat ), and: > root@m2:~# for i in {1..5};do mdname="md0"; echo "iteration $i"; > (mdadm --detail /dev/$mdname|grep 'State ';cat > /sys/block/$mdname/md/array_state;grep "$mdname :" /proc/mdstat);sleep > 1;done > iteration 1 > State : clean > clean > md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1] > iteration 2 > State : clean > clean > md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1] > iteration 3 > State : clean > clean > md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1] > iteration 4 > State : clean > clean > md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1] > iteration 5 > State : clean > clean > md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1] > > so, mdadm --detail & array_state shows array is "clean", while > /proc/mdstat shows array is "active" (no reads/writes happen). > > Some value is lieing or being misunderdstanded by me... In mdstat you have 'active' or 'inactive'. You cannot access an array at all until it is active. If you are assembling an array bit by bit with "mdadm -I", it will be inactive until all the devices appear. Then it will be active. In mdadm "State :" you have 'active' or 'clean'. as described above. It used to be 'dirty' or 'clean' but people were confused by having 'dirty' arrays in normal operation. So I changed it to 'active' and now it confuses a different set of people. You just can't win can you :-) NeilBrown > > > > > > > > >> > >> cheers, > >> harald > >> > >> well, I have only 2 hard drives and no space for more.. > >> > >> Am 16.08.2011 03:29, schrieb Roberto Spadim: > >> > try raid10 far layout > >> > > >> > 2011/8/15 Harald Nikolisin <hochglanz@gmail.com > >> > <mailto:hochglanz@gmail.com>> > >> > > >> > Since a long time I'm unhappy with the performance of my RAID-1 system. > >> > Investigation with atop and iostat unveils that the disk utilization is > >> > always on a certain level although nothing happens on the system. In the > >> > case of reading or writing files the utilization boosts always to 100% > >> > for a long time. Very ugly examples are "Firefox starting" or "zypper > >> > updates". > >> > That is snapshot of the output of iostat: > >> > > >> > > >> > Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s > >> > avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util > >> > sda 0,00 0,00 0,00 7,33 0,00 43,33 > >> > 5,91 0,33 43,18 33,32 24,43 > >> > sdb 0,00 0,00 0,00 7,33 0,00 43,33 > >> > 5,91 0,35 45,59 39,73 29,13 > >> > md0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,67 0,00 5,33 > >> > 8,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 > >> > md1 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,33 0,00 5,33 > >> > 16,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 > >> > md2 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,33 0,00 1,00 > >> > 3,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 > >> > md3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 > >> > 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 > >> > md4 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 > >> > 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 > >> > md5 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,33 0,00 0,67 > >> > 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 > >> > > >> > I checked with mdadm if a resync happens or so, but this is not the > >> > case. The state says "active" on all RAID devices - btw. what is the > >> > difference to "clean" ? > >> > > >> > thanks for any hints, > >> > harald > >> > -- > >> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > >> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > >> > <mailto:majordomo@vger.kernel.org> > >> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Roberto Spadim > >> > Spadim Technology / SPAEmpresarial > >> > >> > >> -- > >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Device utilization with RAID-1 2011-08-19 0:31 ` NeilBrown @ 2011-08-19 18:32 ` maurice 2011-08-20 3:13 ` John Robinson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: maurice @ 2011-08-19 18:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: NeilBrown; +Cc: CoolCold, hochglanz, linux-raid On 8/18/2011 6:31 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > .. > In mdstat you have 'active' or 'inactive'. You cannot access an array at all > until it is active. If you are assembling an array bit by bit with "mdadm > -I", it will be inactive until all the devices appear. Then it will be > active. > > In mdadm "State :" you have 'active' or 'clean'. as described above. It used > to be 'dirty' or 'clean' but people were confused by having 'dirty' arrays in > normal operation. So I changed it to 'active' and now it confuses a > different set of people. You just can't win can you :-) > > NeilBrown mdstat: "Enabled" or "Disabled" perhaps? That matches what most commercial hardware RAID interfaces use. -- Cheers, Maurice Hilarius eMail: /mhilarius@gmail.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Device utilization with RAID-1 2011-08-19 18:32 ` maurice @ 2011-08-20 3:13 ` John Robinson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: John Robinson @ 2011-08-20 3:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: maurice; +Cc: NeilBrown, linux-raid On 19/08/2011 19:32, maurice wrote: > On 8/18/2011 6:31 PM, NeilBrown wrote: >> .. >> In mdstat you have 'active' or 'inactive'. You cannot access an array >> at all >> until it is active. If you are assembling an array bit by bit with "mdadm >> -I", it will be inactive until all the devices appear. Then it will be >> active. >> >> In mdadm "State :" you have 'active' or 'clean'. as described above. >> It used >> to be 'dirty' or 'clean' but people were confused by having 'dirty' >> arrays in >> normal operation. So I changed it to 'active' and now it confuses a >> different set of people. You just can't win can you :-) >> >> NeilBrown > > mdstat: > "Enabled" or "Disabled" perhaps? > > That matches what most commercial hardware RAID interfaces use. Does it? It sounds more like an administrative action than a current status. I would have thought "online" or "offline" - unless that means something else somewhere else. And for mdadm state: how about "busy" and "idle"? Hmm maybe just "busy" instead of "active" or "dirty"; we don't want to start an array with --assume-idle... Cheers, John. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-08-20 3:13 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-08-18 0:26 Fwd: Re: Device utilization with RAID-1 Harald Nikolisin 2011-08-18 1:42 ` NeilBrown 2011-08-18 6:44 ` Stefan /*St0fF*/ Hübner 2011-08-18 13:44 ` CoolCold 2011-08-19 0:31 ` NeilBrown 2011-08-19 18:32 ` maurice 2011-08-20 3:13 ` John Robinson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).