From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linux Raid Study Subject: Re: iostat with raid device... Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:32:34 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20110409094629.2eae2d5b@notabene.brown> <20110409085044.GB417@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110409085044.GB417@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linux Raid Study , NeilBrown , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Hi Robin, Thanks. So, the uneven (unequal) distribution of Wrtie/Sec numbers in the iostat output are ok...is that correct? Thanks. On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Robin Hill wrot= e: > On Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 05:40:46PM -0700, Linux Raid Study wrote: > >> What I'm not sure of is if the device is newly formatted, would raid >> recovery happen? What else could explain difference in the first run >> of IO benchmark? >> > When an array is first created, it's created in a degraded state - th= is > is the simplest way to make it available to the user instantly. The > final drive(s) are then automatically rebuilt, calculating the > parity/data information as normal for recovering a drive. > > Cheers, > =C2=A0 =C2=A0Robin > -- > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ___ > =C2=A0 =C2=A0( ' } =C2=A0 =C2=A0 | =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Robin Hill =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 | > =C2=A0 / / ) =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| Little Jim says .... =C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0| > =C2=A0// !! =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 | =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0"He fallen in = de water !!" =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 | > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html