From: Ted Ts'o Subject: Re: Uneven load on my raid disks. Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:17:15 -0500 Message-ID: <20101229221715.GK10149@thunk.org> References: <20101228090749.GB1351@bitwizard.nl> <4D1B646C.8030100@uni-konstanz.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Rogier Wolff , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Kay Diederichs Return-path: Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:52474 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753729Ab0L2WR2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:17:28 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D1B646C.8030100@uni-konstanz.de> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 05:40:12PM +0100, Kay Diederichs wrote: > >says: dumpe2fs -h /dev/md0 | grep RAID > > % tune2fs -l /dev/md0 > > ... > RAID stride: 128 > RAID stripe width: 768 > ... > > runs much faster than dumpe2fs. > The command can also adjust the values. Actually, "tune2fs -l" and "dumpe2fs -h" both run in about the same amount of time. dumpe2fs without the -h option runs slower than tune2fs -l, true. But that's because it reads and prints out information regarding the block and inode allocation bitmaps. - Ted