| To: | xfs <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Question regarding XFS on LVM over hardware RAID. |
| From: | "C. Morgan Hamill" <chamill@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 29 Jan 2014 09:26:40 -0500 |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wesleyan.edu; s=feb2013.wesmsa; t=1391005601; bh=ya0JK/XmK7iAfKasId8g1VAryAwqUmAqzlg5vluXAF0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date; b=kAqAozSrrhLEJ1IvnsGXsFiSZR1Nf8kagIaveYMC5J8gpBG/FxKV+NCm0TdWRYQXt IrX0s0una6dXirYsFH8p/9m9RlsTeZ47ROt3XasIqnqVCe2ftMMNnx+fFTbcwD+w/w Rbo3msH2xwY0mgnSk1MRYP55EttzxluV0E8oBM6M= |
| User-agent: | Sup/git |
Howdy folks, I understand that XFS have stripe unit and width configured according to the underlying RAID device when using LVM, but I was wondering if this is still the case when a given XFS-formatted logical volume takes up only part of the available space on the RAID. In particular, I could imagine that stripe width would need to be modified proportionally with the decrease in filesystem size. My intuition says that's false, but I wanted to check with folks who know for sure. Thanks for any help! -- Morgan Hamill |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Not being able to recover a RAID 5 20 Tb partition, help needed, Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: sanitize sb_inopblock in xfs_mount_validate_sb, Jeff Liu |
| Previous by Thread: | Not being able to recover a RAID 5 20 Tb partition, help needed, Juan A. Sillero |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Question regarding XFS on LVM over hardware RAID., Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |