| To: | Brad Langhorst <brad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: raid 10 su, sw settings |
| From: | Iustin Pop <iusty@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 31 Dec 2007 22:42:23 +0100 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1199134501.3437.21.camel@up> |
| Mail-followup-to: | Brad Langhorst <brad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <1199059239.13944.65.camel@up> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712311203220.23402@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1199126586.3437.10.camel@up> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712311406190.1239@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20071231201712.GA3679@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1199134501.3437.21.camel@up> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) |
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 03:55:01PM -0500, Brad Langhorst wrote: > Any opinions on the partition layout? Did you go to special effort to > layout your partitions on the stripe boundaries (actually i don't really > understand this fully yet). So instead of the usual 255 heads, 63 cylinders fake geometry that is not a multiple of anything, I setup 16h/16c geometry that gives a nice power-of-two multiplier so all partitions *should* be aligned at a nice multiple of any size you choose; fdisk -l on the drive reports units of 128k. I have to say that the performance of the filesystem (XFS) on that raid10 is satisfactory and about what I expected. Certainly ~50MiB/s write while doing ~50MiB/s reads (for a combined, not purely sequential throughput of ~100MiB/s) is enough for my needs. regards, iustin |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: raid 10 su, sw settings, Brad Langhorst |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: raid 10 su, sw settings, Brad Langhorst |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: raid 10 su, sw settings, Brad Langhorst |
| Next by Thread: | Re: raid 10 su, sw settings, Brad Langhorst |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |