[Top] [All Lists]

Re: creating a new 80 TB XFS

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: creating a new 80 TB XFS
From: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:08:05 +0100
In-reply-to: <4F478818.4050803@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Intellique
References: <4F478818.4050803@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Le Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:52:40 +0100
Richard Ems <richard.ems@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> écrivait:

> Hi list,
> We are getting now 32 x 3 TB Hitachi SATA HDDs.
> I plan to configure them in a single RAID 6 set with one or two
> hot-standby discs. The raw storage space will then be 28 x 3 TB = 84
> TB. On this one RAID set I will create only one volume.
> Any thoughts on this?

If you'd rather go for more safety you could build 2 16 drives RAID-6
arrays instead. I'd be somewhat reluctant to make a 30 drives array
--though current drives are quite safe apparently.

> *MKFS*
> We also heavily use ACLs for almost all of our files. Christoph
> Hellwig suggested in a previous mail to use "-i size=512" on XFS
> creation, so my mkfs.xfs would look something like:
> mkfs.xfs -i size=512 -d su=stripe_size,sw=28 -L Backup_2 /dev/sdX1

Looks OK to me.
> On mount I will use the options
> mount -o noatime,nobarrier,nofail,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k,inode64
> /dev/sdX1 /mount_point

I think that the logbufs/logbsize option matches the default here. Use
delaylog if applicable. See the xfs FAQ.
> What about the largeio mount option? In which cases would it be
> useful?

If you're mostly writing/reading large files. Like really large
(several megabytes and more).

Emmanuel Florac     |   Direction technique
                    |   Intellique
                    |   <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                    |   +33 1 78 94 84 02

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