xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS over LVM over md RAID

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS over LVM over md RAID
From: Richard Scobie <richard@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 09:42:02 +1200
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4C8A3F8F.4000704@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4C89668E.6010800@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20100910013026.GA24409@dastard> <4C899816.6030506@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4C8A3F8F.4000704@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Lightning/1.0b1 SeaMonkey/2.0.4
Eric Sandeen wrote:

yup F11 doesn't have all the nice blkid topology bits; F11 still has
libblkid in e2fsprogs, from before it was liberated to util-linux-ng.

(I wonder if we shouldn't just convert xfsprogs over to use the ioctls...)

Thanks both for your help. For various reasons, I'll just rely on using the non-topology aware version.

In the future this lv will be grown in multiples of 256K chunk, 16 drive RAID6 arrays, so am I correct in thinking that the sunit/swidth parameter can stay the same as it is expanded?

I am thinking that XFS allocates ag's across all the space and that it will only be writing to any one array at a time, or would there be more configured if mkfs.xfs were aware that it was being created on say, 2 x 16 RAID6 arrays?

This is based on backing up the first array prior to expansion, adding the second and mkfs.xfs, as I imagine just expanding the fs over the second would result in non optimal performance.

Regards,

Richard

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