[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 128TB filesystem limit?

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: 128TB filesystem limit?
From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 01:09:08 -0500
In-reply-to: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003252152350.16138@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003251609160.12435@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100325235433.GM3335@dastard> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003251702190.12435@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100326003511.GN3335@dastard> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003251900110.12435@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4BAC3990.30403@xxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003252152350.16138@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
david@xxxxxxx put forth on 3/25/2010 11:56 PM:

>>> the next fun thing is figuring out what sort of stride, etc parameters I
>>> should have used for this filesystem.
>> mkfs.xfs should suss that out for you automatically based on talking
>> to md;
>> of course you'd want to configure md to line up well with the hardware
>> alignment.
> in this case md thinks it's working with 10 12.8TB drives, I really
> doubt that it's going to do the right thing.
> I'm not exactly sure what the right thing is in this case. the hardware
> raid is useing 64K chunks across 16 drives (so 14 * 64K worth of data
> per stripe), but there are 10 of these stripes before you get back to
> hitting the same drive again.

It would be helpful if you told us the primary application(s) that will be
writing to this large multi-level RAID setup.  Primarily large files or
small?  Database?  ??


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