From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 14 12:15:36 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3751B16A4E0 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:15:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from arne_woerner@yahoo.com) Received: from web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.201.230]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D4B7343D5E for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:15:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from arne_woerner@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 46030 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Jul 2006 12:15:30 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Z0WtQYOSU+B79CbiXUT2+8yDCsehDDxegjwl7vbnXhr/twaC7xs70c0MG5qocPHaoc/J8vhAjA2CzIafeOFdsX8REb56ZgZw/r6gcX1Ksf0NIscWhwv3mfFz8ntpGZauvADQiGn13+r4bbUS1sWZTJUiolMJD4I3UDB8rwyRiwU= ; Message-ID: <20060714121530.46028.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [213.54.67.180] by web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 05:15:30 PDT Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 05:15:30 -0700 (PDT) From: "R. B. Riddick" To: Deomid Ryabkov In-Reply-To: <44B78608.1040300@rojer.pp.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gmirror State: STALE X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:15:36 -0000 --- Deomid Ryabkov wrote: > Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > > > > BTW. Are you sure you don't want to use autosynchronization? > > > > [...] > I think, that ultimately should be handled in the base system: > do not let mirror sync and fsck collide, ever. > I experienced the same problem... Especially when there are two mirrors on the same two disks... Somehow the head positioning times increase the overall processing time much more than linear... I think it would be a good idea to change the rebuild-strategy (maybe something that is slower; e. g. one rebuild-request per 20 other requests or when there are no pending other requests) in case of high load (e. g. fsck), although that would increase the risk of data loss (another strategy could be, that other requests are delayed until 20 rebuild-requests have been completed). There is another problem in my setting: The rebuild of the other mirror devices that use the same disk(s) should be delayed... -Arne __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com