Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
pgquiles probably needs this fixed before he can use in production, so
targeting for 0.7
Original comment by daniel.r...@gmail.com
on 4 Mar 2008 at 1:47
I'm using hardware RAID (HP SmartArray P400 controllers) and it worked fine
until
recently.
Original comment by pgqui...@gmail.com
on 4 Mar 2008 at 8:07
Wow, what a bad choice of words, let's rephrase it: I'm using hardware RAID and
it
works fine for me (at least, it worked fine for me when I tested Zumastor last
week
and discovered issue 85). It's issue 85 what's preventing me from using
Zumastor in
production.
Original comment by pgqui...@gmail.com
on 4 Mar 2008 at 8:16
Jiaying said
"I have not seen the 'extremely extremely' slow
(more than four hours to write 1G data) problem on my testing machine
again. That may be because of the fix of the bio.throttle patch. But the
writes are still quite slow (more than half an hour to write 1G data) both on
my single-spindle testing machine and on the x4500 box. The problem only
happened when zumastor has created a snapshot"
She also thinks it might be related to O_DIRECT.
But since pgquiles doesn't need this right now, let's
defer this issue.
Original comment by daniel.r...@gmail.com
on 4 Mar 2008 at 8:54
It turned out this problem is not related to software raid. The x4500 box we
were
trying just had really bad performance with O_DIRECT writes. So mark it as
'wontfix'.
Original comment by jiahotc...@gmail.com
on 26 Mar 2008 at 7:21
Original comment by daniel.r...@gmail.com
on 26 Mar 2008 at 9:17
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
jiahotc...@gmail.com
on 26 Feb 2008 at 1:03