2010/1/28 Gabor Gombas [off-list ref]:

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 09:31:23AM -0500, Yuehai Xu wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

md0 : active raid5 sdh1[7] sdg1[5] sdf1[4] sde1[3] sdd1[2] sdc1[1] sdb1[0]
      631353600 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [7/6] [UUUUUU_]

[...]

quoted

I don't think any of my drive fail because there is no "F" in my
/proc/mdstat output

It's not failed, it's simply missing. Either it was unavailable when the
array was assembled, or you've explicitely created/assembled the array
with a missing drive.

I noticed that, thanks! Is it usual that at the beginning of each
setup, there is one missing drive?

quoted

How do you know my RAID5 array has one drive missing?

Look at the above output: there are just 6 of the 7 drives available,
and the underscore also means a missing drive.

quoted

I tried to setup RAID5 with 5 disks, 3 disks, after each setup,
recovery has always been done.

Of course.

quoted

However, if I format my md0 with such command:
mkfs.ext3 -b 4096 -E stride=16 -E stripe-width=*** /dev/XXXX, the
performance for RAID5 becomes usual, at about 200~300M/s.

I suppose in that case you had all the disks present in the array.

Yes, I did my test after the recovery, in that case, does the "missing
drive" hurt the performance?

Thanks!

Yuehai

Gabor

--
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute
               Hungarian Academy of Sciences
    ---------------------------------------------------------

--
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