On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Greg Oster wrote:

> Manuel Bouyer writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 08:43:29PM -0600, Greg Oster wrote:
> > >  [..]
> > > > 	Would there be any chance it could degrade the performance of
> > > > 	the system?
> > >
> > > I've not done any real benchmarking on exactly that, but it shouldn't be
> > > any worse than partitioning a disk without the RAID.
> >
> > Could't there be an issue with parity rebuild or reconstruction ?
>
> Yes, you are correct.  But hopefully that is something that doesn't happen
> very often :)
>
> > raidframe will do this in background, slowing down when there are other
> > I/O going through the RAID, but will it include I/O not going through the
> > RAID for its computations ?
>
> No.  RAIDframe will not know about any other I/O that might be happening to
> other partitions on a disk.  This includes I/O to other RAID sets as well...

	Would there be any utility in an option to postpone the raidctl -P
	until after the fsck has been run on a disk? Somewhat compromises
	redundancy in favour of getting the system running faster.

-- 
		David/absolute          -- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --