| To: | Peter Grandi <pg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: raid10n2/xfs setup guidance on write-cache/barrier |
| From: | keld@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:25:48 +0100 |
| Cc: | Linux RAID <linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux fs XFS <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20321.63389.586851.689070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <CAA8mOyDKrWg0QUEHxcD4ocXXD42nJu0TG+sXjC4j2RsigHTcmw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4F61803A.60009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAA8mOyCzs36YD_QUMq25HQf8zuq1=tmSTPjYdoFJwy2Oq9sLmw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20321.63389.586851.689070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.2i |
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 02:07:25PM +0000, Peter Grandi wrote: > >>> I want to create a raid10,n2 using 3 1TB SATA drives. > >>> I want to create an xfs filesystem on top of it. The > >>> filesystem will be used as NFS/Samba storage. > > Consider also an 'o2' layout (it is probably the same thing for a > 3 drive RAID10) or even a RAID5, as 3 drives and this usage seems > one of the few cases where RAID5 may be plausible. Well, for a file server like NFS/Samba, you could also consider raid10,f2. I would think you could get about double the read performance compared to n2 and o2 layouts, and also for individual read transfers on a running system you would get somthing like double the read performance. Write performance could be somewhat slower (0 to 10 %) bot as users are not waiting for writes to complete, they will probably not notice. best regards keld |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: raid10n2/xfs setup guidance on write-cache/barrier, Peter Grandi |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [XFS updates] XFS development tree branch, master, updated. v3.2-rc1-11473-ga05931c, xfs |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: raid10n2/xfs setup guidance on write-cache/barrier, Peter Grandi |
| Next by Thread: | Re: raid10n2/xfs setup guidance on write-cache/barrier, Jessie Evangelista |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |