Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
> > Hmmm, it looks to me like non-drbd is **faster** than > > drbd-disconnected from my numbers, which I would expect. Am I > > mis-reading? > > what I meant is that they are close, and that I have seen on various > setup either the exact same values, or one or the other showing less > latency. yes, obviously in _your_ setup, non-drbd apears to have less > latency, as is naively expected anyways. but I wanted to point out that > there sometimes you also see the counter-intuitive thing, namely > disconnected drbd showing less latency than the underlying device by > itself. which is where said "funny effects" come into play. Got it. Thanks for the clarification. > > The 2 nodes are identical - right down to the io subsystem (identical > > RAID-10 hardware with battery-backed write-back cache enabled and > > identical model hard drives). > > did you _measure_ that. > or do you just "know" that. Well, I ran the MySQL benchmarks **without** DRBD on both machines and got similar results. However, I will re-run the dd tests in the other direction and report back the results. Sam