[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS and RAID5

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: XFS and RAID5
From: ctooley@xxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 08:33:51 -0500
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx

Put my first XFS partition into production use this weekend on top of Software
RAID 0 sets.  The thing that I've found that affects write performance most is
the drive itself.  We have dedicated a controller to each disk (a two controller
Promise card for each of the two disk sets) and performance seems pretty good.
As dangerous as it sounds (to the hardware and the data alike) I've even pulled
the power on the IDE drive while it was running (DON"T DO THIS!!) and had no
adverous affects.  Your mileage may vary, but we're very happy.  I have noticed
that XFS has pretty much the same speeds as ext2+ea+acl when running on
identical hardware, but of course you have journalling so XFS gets the call.  If
only I'd have known that before there was a ton of data on the disks.

Chris Tooley

Andrew Klaassen <ak@xxxxxxx> on 06/18/2001 08:13:34 AM
  To:          linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx                          
  cc:          (bcc: Chris Tooley/AMOA)                       
  Subject      Re: XFS and RAID5                              

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
> since with zero problems. RAID5 seemed ok and we sorted out
> any initial performance problems as we found them with the
> super-responsive XFS people on this list.

7 disks?  I'm curious: SCSI or IDE?  (We're looking into a
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.)

Andrew Klaassen

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