| To: | "Chris Wedgwood" <cw@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: mounting raid5 with different unit values |
| From: | Raz <raziebe@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:42:34 +0200 |
| Cc: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, "Linux RAID Mailing List" <linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20071008004513.GA13543@puku.stupidest.org> |
| References: | <5d96567b0710070015j723810aag20dc3e2866868684@mail.gmail.com> <20071007145213.GA4504@puku.stupidest.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710071147390.22702@p34.internal.lan> <20071008004513.GA13543@puku.stupidest.org> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Well... this thing actually works just fine with a newer kernel ( 2.6.18-8-el5 centos5 ). I managed to mount / mkfs.xfs over raid5 with a pseudo raid5 unit size, and with the appropriate raid 5 patches and user space access-pattern, I elimintaed in 99% cases the read penalty . I sincerly hope I won't be getting any crashes with this file system tunnings. so ... first, chris and all you xfs guys, many many thanks. Chris, How "dangerous" these tunnings are ? Am I to expect "weird" behaviour of the file system ? On 10/8/07, Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 11:48:14AM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote: > > > man mount :) > > Ah of course. > > But those will be more restrictive that what you can specify when you > make the file-system (because mkfs.xfs can aligned the AGs to suit). > -- Raz |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | TAKE 964002 - Don't wait for pending I/Os when purging blocks beyond eof., Lachlan McIlroy |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: DMAPI problem with the new filldir implementation, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | TAKE 964002 - Don't wait for pending I/Os when purging blocks beyond eof., Lachlan McIlroy |
| Next by Thread: | Unexpected XFS SB number 0x00000000, Chris |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |