xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: raid 10 su, sw settings

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>