... parity sync is a lot slower than earlier 5.0 builds and 4.7. Tunable (md_sync_window) is set to 512 as you suggested.

 

Parity build = 90MB/s to 110MB/s

Parity sync = 40MB/s to 65MB/s (this is way too slow, ~24 hour parity syncs every month, if anything sync should be faster than a build)

 

With rc8a, I'm getting over 100MB/s on a parity check (much faster than some of the earlier versions!).  I haven't tried a parity build - this is my live server.

My parity check speed is 50 to 65MB/s on 8a and was 85MB/s on RC5.

Seems to be working, only problem is the same as the last RC (and the test builds) and that's parity sync is a lot slower than earlier 5.0 builds and 4.7. Tunable (md_sync_window) is set to 512 as you suggested.

 

Parity build = 90MB/s to 110MB/s

Parity sync = 40MB/s to 65MB/s (this is way too slow, ~24 hour parity syncs every month, if anything sync should be faster than a build)

 

If I downgrade to B12a, I get much faster speeds but then I get SAS2LP errors. I'll keep using RC8 but I hope this is fixable.

 

My parity check speed is 50MB/s on 8a and was 85MB/s on RC5.

 

If someone does not have the hardware configuration in their signature it will be a good idea to provide at least the basic hardware - motherboard, controllers (with firmware revision if possible) and number of drives (and distribution on these if possible) if we are discussing the speed.

Tom is not clairvoyant neither he has the time to check our other posts to find out what hardware are we using. 

@Tom, can we see update of following part in the next build?

 

Netatalk to version 3.0

Samba to version 3.6.8

 

//Peter

 

 

 

+1

Running RC8a on my config in my signature with LSI 9220 (M1015).  Drive 3 went to sleep and woke up without red balling.  Will continue testing.  Thanks Tom.

Joe are you sure you installed 8a as 8 had the Ethernet driver issue?

No,  I installed rc8 last night.  I could not connect once I rebooted, but I left the server run overnight.

 

I now need to take the server apart later to get to the flash drive to load 8a. 

(it is mounted internally)  It is not as bad as it seems,  as the C2SEE based server is a backup of my older server.

(which is still online)

 

Joe L.

I took the cover off the server and got access to the internally mounted flash drive.  I moved it to my laptop, copied bzroot and bzimage from the rc8a distribution to it, put it back in the server, powered up, and I could then get to the web-management page once more.

 

It is interesting that Tom did not discover this on his own, as the C2SEE motherboard is the exact one he was using on his  servers. 

 

Parity check speed is roughly 80MB/s (not much different then previously)   

 

Joe L.

I guess regression testing is a lost art. 

 

It is interesting that Tom did not discover this on his own, as the C2SEE motherboard is the exact one he was using on his  servers. 

 

Parity check speed is roughly 80MB/s (not much different then previously)   

 

Joe L.

I guess regression testing is a lost art. 

 

I'm really sorry about that.  I only have one C2SEE m/b left and it recently lost video and I have not replaced it yet.  I have no other m/b with a Realtek NIC and I have been too stubborn to buy another one. 

I'm about to build a new server and would love to know which motherboard you plan on using on your new server offering.  I am currently using the C2SEE motherboard series as well.. I like to stick with what is known to work and will most likely get tested going forward.

any idea if the new rack mount system will support esx   (vt-d passthrough is what im looking for)

I am hoping the new official motherboard wont be "special order" only in the EU... e.g. Supermicro/Tyan.

 

I suspect it will

I now need to take the server apart later to get to the flash drive to load 8a. 

(it is mounted internally) 

 

Hi Joe,

 

Just wondering why you would not temporarily share the flash drive and then update the files over the network.  Saves me a lot of scratching around and a lot of time.

 

Cheers,

 

Les.

 

I now need to take the server apart later to get to the flash drive to load 8a. 

(it is mounted internally) 

 

Hi Joe,

 

Just wondering why you would not temporarily share the flash drive and then update the files over the network.  Saves me a lot of scratching around and a lot of time.

 

Cheers,

 

Les.

 

Because the release he tried did not have network drivers for his NIC?

I just wanted to put my vote into the mix that we need to hault any new features and work on making 5.0 stable and release it. Let anything new go in 5.1

 

I prefer a release be listed as final/stable as otherwise at the first symptom of problems someone in the forums will make the suggestion that you need to upgrade/downgrade to get something to work as expected, or a certain plugin only works on these betas and not those...

 

I just want something stable that supports 3tb+ drives. If your going to continue to add new features to 5 then backport 3tb support to the 4.7 releases.

 

 

 

I now need to take the server apart later to get to the flash drive to load 8a. 

(it is mounted internally) 

 

Hi Joe,

 

Just wondering why you would not temporarily share the flash drive and then update the files over the network.  Saves me a lot of scratching around and a lot of time.

 

Cheers,

 

Les.

 

Because the release he tried did not have network drivers for his NIC?

 

Doh!    I must learn to engage brain before typing!  Sorry about that.

I just wanted to put my vote into the mix that we need to hault any new features and work on making 5.0 stable and release it. Let anything new go in 5.1

 

I prefer a release be listed as final/stable as otherwise at the first symptom of problems someone in the forums will make the suggestion that you need to upgrade/downgrade to get something to work as expected, or a certain plugin only works on these betas and not those...

 

I just want something stable that supports 3tb+ drives. If your going to continue to add new features to 5 then backport 3tb support to the 4.7 releases.

 

+1

 

Any talk of adding new features to a release candidate is a BAD joke imho 

It is interesting that Tom did not discover this on his own, as the C2SEE motherboard is the exact one he was using on his  servers. 

 

Parity check speed is roughly 80MB/s (not much different then previously)   

 

Joe L.

I guess regression testing is a lost art. 

 

I'm really sorry about that.  I only have one C2SEE m/b left and it recently lost video and I have not replaced it yet.  I have no other m/b with a Realtek NIC and I have been too stubborn to buy another one. 

 

I have an idle one,  new in box. I thought I was going to use it and went in a different direction.

If you want it let me know.

Rob.

Since it looks like we are on the final run can I suggest that we resist the temptation to just bring out a stable.

 

I think the length of the development cycle and the number of changes that have been introduced (out of necessity as much as anything else) have made in my opinion this release one of the first true release candidates (with quite a few RCs being betas by another name).

 

So my suggestion is that once we get to a place where the "final" is ready we issue a notice that a final release candidate is ready for all users to test.

 

I have a strong suspicion that a large percentage of users haven't touched the 5 series as it was just to fluid for too long and the last thing we need is us designated a stable that hasnt seen the maximum amount of testing.

I hate to say it, but parity check (which I didn't ask for but started on its own despite a clean shutdown) is SLOW on the order of 30's/mb/s versus on rc6 where I was getting 80-100mb/s

 

OK I just hit refresh after about 5 min ... jumped to 60mb/s but is slowly dropping on subsequent refreshes ... well it seems to have setteled at 50-60mb/s but that is still slower than what I saw with rc6

 

syslog if it helps [shrug]

 

EDIT: RETRACTION:

Last checked on Tue Sep 18 23:12:00 2012 EDT (today), finding 0 errors.
* Duration: 6 hours, 1 minute, 49 seconds. Average speed: 92.1 MB/sec

 

Can't argue with that   Not sure why it seems to start so slow but boy did it finish strong!!!

syslog.zip

We need to leave the plugin manager and multi-array stuff for 5.1

I 1000% agree.  That is a great roadmap for 5.1  (for the plugin-manager) and 5.2 (for multi-array), leaving the kernel and network drivers the same as 5.0-final.

 

Joe L.

 

+1  Please do this, I have said this since before 3TB support. 

 

On a side note how much is that case going to cost?

8a seems perfect so far.. Spin up, down and back up without issues. Reboots really fast and my parity speeds seem normal in the 60-80 range (at 12% so far). I'll give it a few days, but if it stays up I'm calling this one my own person 5.0-final

 

I wouldn't complain about a netatalk version update. Great work Tom..

 

whiteatom

No problems so far, I'm also seeing 60-80 when doing a parity check.

I'm seeing 80-90 MBps with a parity check.

Parity check started out around 40 Mbps, after about 7% it went to 94 Mbps, has held steady for the last hour or so. This is how it usually goes for me, towards the end it will drop down to ~75Mbps. No complaints here, hopefully tomorrow I'll put in my spare NIC and see if it has resolved issues for it.

I wish people wouldn't use mbps!! Parity checks are measured MB/s which is completely different to Mb/s (mbps)!!!!!

I wish people wouldn't use mbps!! Parity checks are measured MB/s which is completely different to Mb/s (mbps)!!!!!

 

And still you knew exactly what this user meant. I run an internet speedtest site and there you also have MB/s and Mb/s, but whichever one I use, there's always a large group which does not understand it. Maybe the units are simply not clear enough by themselves. Before you know it this leads to a linux/windows discussion on wether casing is enough of a differentatior. I'm inclined to say no, as a programmer I think variable value1 and Value1 should be the same.