xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Optimal XFS formatting options?

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Optimal XFS formatting options?
From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:44:46 -0600
In-reply-to: <201201201652.10193@xxxxxx>
References: <33140169.post@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201201171019.58714@xxxxxx> <4F155CC2.3050201@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201201201652.10193@xxxxxx>
Reply-to: stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
On 1/20/2012 9:52 AM, Michael Monnerie wrote:
> On Dienstag, 17. Januar 2012 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> So to be clear, your issue with the above isn't with my partition
>> alignment math WRT the OP's P2000 array, but is with using XFS stripe
>> alignment in general, correct?
> 
> Yes. I just wanted to document this as people often expand RAIDs and 
> forget to apply the changes to stripe width.
>  
>> There is one really simple way around this issue you describe: don't
>> add drives to an existing array.  Simply create another array with
>> new disks, create a new aligned XFS on the array, and mount the
>> filesystem in an appropriate location.  There is no 11th Commandment
>> stating one must have a single massive XFS atop all of one's disks.
>> ;)
>>
>> There is little to no application software today that can't be
>> configured to store its data files across multiple directories.  So
>> there's no need to box oneself into the corner you describe above.
> 
> It's a management burden to do that. I've learned that systems usually 
> are strictly structured in their configuration, so it's often better to 
> extend a RAID and to keep the config, as this is cheaper in the end. At 
> least for the salaries of good admins here in Europe ;-)

If ease (or cost) of filesystem administration is of that much greater
priority than performance, then why are you using XFS in the first place
instead of EXT?

-- 
Stan

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