xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS and RAID5

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: XFS and RAID5
From: Robin Humble <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 02:55:26 +1000 (EST)
In-reply-to: <20010618091334.A2209@key.dkp.com> from "Andrew Klaassen" at Jun 18, 2001 09:13:34 AM
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Andrew Klaassen writes:
>On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 03:55:36PM +1000,
>Robin Humble wrote:
>> Around the time of the 2.4.3 kernel we used XFS over software
>> RAID5 for a month or so before a disk died and we didn't
>> bother replacing it - we've been using 420G (7 disks) of RAID0
>>...
>7 disks?  I'm curious: SCSI or IDE?  (We're looking into a

IDE. Seven 60G maxtor 7200rpm + two Promise ATA 100 cards and using
both master and slave on each of the 4 IDE controllers. Contrary to
popular belief, using both master and slave only gets you a ~5%
performance hit.

>Promise or 3ware card to allow us to put lots of IDE drives in a
>box and run software RAID over top, and were wondering if anyone
>else has had experience with these cards+software RAID+XFS.)

We're also considering 3ware this time around 'cos they have up to 8
IDE ports per card which saves on PCI slots... we could also try their
hardware RAID5, but I think performance'll be way worse than software
RAID5 - their website site only claims 6MB/s(?) writes(*) and we've
seen more than 3x that with software RAID5 on a slowish celeron.

cheers,
robin

(*) this is for the older 6000 series, and their writing and graphs
conflict about RAID5 write speeds, but I'm going with the graph...
http://www.3ware.com/storage/raid5_slide.asp#a7

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>