xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS + LVM + Software RAID5

To: Charles Steinkuehler <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS + LVM + Software RAID5
From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:50:27 -0700
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <40DC58C8.1000703@steinkuehler.net>
References: <40D87D2D.9060803@steinkuehler.net> <20040623021127.GA23321@taniwha.stupidest.org> <40D8EE38.6070200@steinkuehler.net> <20040623025701.GA23782@taniwha.stupidest.org> <40D9BBE7.8070504@steinkuehler.net> <1088101692.2351.7.camel@bonnie79> <40DC58C8.1000703@steinkuehler.net>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 11:54:32AM -0500, Charles Steinkuehler wrote:

> If I put the log on a RAID1 that shares spindles with the RAID5
> array, will this totally kill my performance?

It won't help performance and you might as well use an internal log
then, in fact it will probably be worse than an internal log (mkfs.xfs
places the internal log near the middle of the fs to reduce the impact
seeks I assume).

I use external logs on different spindles and get better performance
than internal logs, but you can also tune logbsize at mount time and
trade some performance for how old the metadata is during a replay.
If you want large logbsize you need to use v2 logs.

> I suppose this could have been due to my drive corruption problems,
> but it would be nice to hear from someone who can confirm XFS gets
> along nicely with RAID5 (I can't test until I get new hardware and
> can put more than 2 drives online at once w/o driver problems :< ).

Last I tested RAID-5 with XFS it was fine (I never used LVM though).


  --cw


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