On 2017-05-03 23:48, pit wrote:
John Andersen wrote:
On 05/03/2017 01:59 PM, pit wrote:
/dev/md0 on /data/disk1 type xfs (rw,nodev,noatime,attr2,inode64,sunit=1024,swidth=15360,noquota) /dev/md1 on /data/disk2 type xfs (rw,relatime,attr2,inode64,sunit=1024,swidth=5120,noquota)
md1 is the HD one - that was added on the fly and is mounted with 'default'
noatime and relatime are not the same.
Manpage says 'similar to noatime'. If anything it should be slightly worse than the noatime, but md1 is the 'performant HDD RAID'...
You are forcing the raid to run in such a way that one disk is updated differently than the other, and has different content, not in the data but in the inodes and metadata.
Not sure if I understand what you say. You refer to the 'relatime' option? Or do you mean when comparing the two sets? I know they have different parameters, so comparing results from them is difficult...
It doesn't matter. The md2 array gets relatime because that is the current default, and at worst it would perform slower than noatime - which is not not case, md1 performs faster than md0. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)