xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Calculating swidth On A RAID6 Volume

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Calculating swidth On A RAID6 Volume
From: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:00:51 +0200
In-reply-to: <20100720164444.4c1cef88@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: it-management http://it-management.at
References: <3C5E029826A0704DB5998577FCFF46F0094DA1AD69@dagobah> <4C45AF09.5090901@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100720164444.4c1cef88@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/2.6.34.1-zmi; KDE/4.3.5; x86_64; ; )
On Dienstag, 20. Juli 2010 Emmanuel Florac wrote:
> > so a sunit value of 512 would mean 256KB stripe size which
> > is correct :-)
> 
> exactly. Or use su and sw to specify the size in k, m, etc.
 
Ah, I remember the difference now, that's why I use su= and sw=. This 
mix of different units is... irritating.

I corrected the FAQ now to use su+sw:
http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_How_to_calculate_the_correct_sunit.2Cswidth_values_for_optimal_performance
And I mentioned "swidth" and "sunit" in a sentence in the end.

I'd say using su+sw is more future proof than swidth+sunit, as 4K sector 
drives will become standard, and then using 512B units will be outdated 
anyway, right? And using su+sw seems simpler to me to explain. YMMV, 

-- 
mit freundlichen Grüssen,
Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc

it-management Internet Services
http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee]
Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31

****** Aktuelles Radiointerview! ******
http://www.it-podcast.at/aktuelle-sendung.html

// Wir haben im Moment zwei Häuser zu verkaufen:
// http://zmi.at/langegg/
// http://zmi.at/haus2009/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

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