| To: | david@xxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 128TB filesystem limit? |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:35:28 -0500 |
| Cc: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003251900110.12435@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003251609160.12435@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100325235433.GM3335@dastard> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003251702190.12435@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100326003511.GN3335@dastard> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003251900110.12435@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228) |
david@xxxxxxx wrote: > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Dave Chinner wrote: ... >> Is there any reason for putting partitions on these block devices? >> You could just use the block devices without partitions, and that >> will avoid alignment potential problems.... > > I would like to raid to auto-assemble and I can't do that without > partitions, can I I think you can.... it's not like MD is putting anything in the partition table; you just give it block devices, I doubt it cares if it's a whole disk or some partition. Worth a check anyway ;) ... > the next fun thing is figuring out what sort of stride, etc parameters I > should have used for this filesystem. mkfs.xfs should suss that out for you automatically based on talking to md; of course you'd want to configure md to line up well with the hardware alignment. -Eric > David Lang |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: 128TB filesystem limit?, david |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 128TB filesystem limit?, david |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 128TB filesystem limit?, david |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 128TB filesystem limit?, david |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |