Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
Felix Frank-2 wrote: > > Hi. > >> if I check the status of drbd the following response is: >> >> 0: cs: Connected ro: Primary / Primary ds: UpToDate / UpToDate C r ---- >> ns: 640864680 nr: 135234784 dw: 776099464 dr: 1520599328 al: 836478 >> bm: >> 2185 lo: 0 pe: 0 ua: 0 ap: 0 ep: 1 wo: b OOS: 0 >> >> I do not know if it is positive that the method is to write after is >> Barrier >> .... reading the manuals of drbd I noticed that in these cases (BBU) >> performance would be better for a wo:n >> >> What do you think? > >>>Possibly? You may want to just test the performance difference. > > so there is no certainty that it is more powerful > I can just do a test > >> more to this I can tell you that another hardware configuration with a >> simple SATA disks in software raid 0 configuration (sda and sdb) and >> without drbd.conf options: no-disk-flushes -no-md-flushes, The drbd uses >> instead the drain ... that seems to be dangerous without a BBU, but the >> drbd >> has preferred this choice, and not clear to me ... > >>>Check you kernel logs. DRBD may have noticed that barriers are not >>>available for your backing device and thus falls back to drain. Is LVM >>>involved in your that setup per chance? > >>>Regards, >>>Felix > > Unfortunately I have nothing in the logs, the rotate deleted the old log, > but do not understand much because the drbd not find in my backing storage > support for the barrier, I use LVM on top of drbd and not vice versa, is > not this strange thing? > > > ____________ > ___________________________________ > drbd-user mailing list > drbd-user at lists.linbit.com > http://lists.linbit.com/mailman/listinfo/drbd-user > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/DRBD-write-after-write-%28cache%29-tp30850998p30881352.html Sent from the DRBD - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.