Re: Long checkpoint woe

"Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@serendipita.com> wrote in message news:<mailman.199.1143581964.18205.informix-list@iiug.org>... > > > 61 seconds for a dd from disk to disk is DEFINITELY a hardware problem. > Are you SURE it's not running in RAID5 config? With a 2k blocksize: is it *that* bad? I thought some others might try it. I did it on Londis's EMC and it took 11 seconds! I'm sure it's not a hardware problem - it's exactly the same in two sites.

Neil Truby said: > > "Roy Mercer" <roy.mercer@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1143575685.269708.17040@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... >> Use /dev/null for if and then for of. >> This will tell you if it is a read issue or write issue. >> If they are the same then it is a real problem with the disks. > > # time dd if=/dev/md/rdsk/d121 of=/dev/null bs=2k > 10240+0 records in > 10240+0 records out > > real 0m14.24s > user 0m0.01s > sys 0m0.36s > # time dd of=/dev/md/rdsk/d121 if=/dev/null bs=2k > 0+0 records in > 0+0 records out > > real 0m0.02s > user 0m0.00s > sys 0m0.01s > >> Post more information about the storage array. > > It's a Sun StorEdge 3310 in JBOD format. I don;t think it is a hardware > problem (as I keep telling IBM too) because it's the same result on two > servers/arrays 300 miles apart. 61 seconds for a dd from disk to disk is DEFINITELY a hardware problem. Are you SURE it's not running in RAID5 config? -- Bye now, Obnoxio Information within this post contains forward looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21B of the S E C Act of 1934. Statements that involve discussions with respect to projections of future events are not statements of historical fact and may be forward looking statements. Don't rely on them to make a decision. The poster is not a reporting company registered under the Exchange Act of 1934. I have received a life peerage from Her Majesty, who is not an officer, minister or affiliate Labour party member. I intend to recover my loan now, which could cause the parliamentary majority to go down, resulting in losses for you. Today's Labour party has: an accumulated deficit and a reliance on loans from officers and affiliates to pay expenses. It is not an operating political party. The party is going to need financing to continue as a going concern. A failure to finance could cause the party to go out of business. This report shall not be construed as any kind of investment advice or solicitation. You can lose all your money by investing in this party.

Neil Truby said: > With a 2k blocksize: is it *that* bad? I thought some others might try it. > I > did it on Londis's EMC and it took 11 seconds! > > I'm sure it's not a hardware problem - it's exactly the same in two sites. I just did this with cygwin on my laptop: $ time dd if=x.xx of=y.yy count=10240 bs=2k10240+0 records in 10240+0 records out real 0m0.339s user 0m0.020s sys 0m0.240s $ ls -l y.yy -rw-r--r-- 1 GB057432 None 20971520 Mar 28 23:07 y.yy 11 seconds on your EMC, eh? Is it plugged in? :o) -- Bye now, Obnoxio Information within this post contains forward looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21B of the S E C Act of 1934. Statements that involve discussions with respect to projections of future events are not statements of historical fact and may be forward looking statements. Don't rely on them to make a decision. The poster is not a reporting company registered under the Exchange Act of 1934. I have received a life peerage from Her Majesty, who is not an officer, minister or affiliate Labour party member. I intend to recover my loan now, which could cause the parliamentary majority to go down, resulting in losses for you. Today's Labour party has: an accumulated deficit and a reliance on loans from officers and affiliates to pay expenses. It is not an operating political party. The party is going to need financing to continue as a going concern. A failure to finance could cause the party to go out of business. This report shall not be construed as any kind of investment advice or solicitation. You can lose all your money by investing in this party.

Neil Truby wrote: > "Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@serendipita.com> wrote in message > news:<mailman.199.1143581964.18205.informix-list@iiug.org>... > > >> 61 seconds for a dd from disk to disk is DEFINITELY a hardware problem. > >> Are you SURE it's not running in RAID5 config? > > With a 2k blocksize: is it *that* bad? I thought some others might try it. I > did it on Londis's EMC and it took 11 seconds! > > I'm sure it's not a hardware problem - it's exactly the same in two sites. > On a SunBlade with an SUN StorEdge T3 system attached I get this: time dd of=/dev/rdsk/c8t1d0s1 if=/dev/zero bs=2k count=10240 10240+0 records in 10240+0 records out real 0m6.00s user 0m0.05s sys 0m0.45s for writing and this time dd if=/dev/rdsk/c8t1d0s1 of=/dev/null bs=2k count=10240 10240+0 records in 10240+0 records out real 0m5.53s user 0m0.03s sys 0m0.39s for reading. The T3 is setup as a RAID0.