xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Yet Another mkfs.xfs RAID Question]

To: Christian.Guggenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Yet Another mkfs.xfs RAID Question]
From: Walt H <waltabbyh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 07:06:15 -0800
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20030202142648.GB12810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20030202142648.GB12810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030131
Christian Guggenberger wrote:
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 04:20:46PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:

"Christian" == Christian Guggenberger 
<Christian.Guggenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Christian> I'm going to set up a new 1.7 TB HW Raid 5 next week.  RAID
Christian> 5 contains 11 disks, Stripe Unit should be (according to
Christian> the manual) 128k.  so my mkfs.xfs options will be
Christian> sunit=256, swidth=2560 for the data section, won't they?

Yup.


Christian> I will definitly use internal log, so I'd like to ask, if I
Christian> should use logversion 2, and what sunit and swidth values I
Christian> should use here?  I guess the same as for the data
Christian> section???

128KB log alignment seems a bit of an overkill.

Does your controller state which chunk size it uses internally?  Most
controllers use 4-16KB blocks for RAID5.  So try aligning your log to
values in that neighbourhood.


thanks for your quick answer!
The only Documentation about stripe or chunk size I got from the vendor is,
to use 32k chunk size for random read/write optimaziation or 128k chunk for
sequentiell read/write optimaziation... No mention about what the contoller
does internally!

so I will stay with logversion 1 and sunit, switdh arguments for data
section as mentioned above.

@Walt, yes its an hardware Raid5

thanks
Christian


Sorry 'bout that. That's what I get for trying to reply without my coffee yet :)



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