| To: | gbakos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: advice: 3ware+raid+xfs |
| From: | Michael Loftis <mloftis@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:28:08 -0700 |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.SOL.4.58.0312071202250.20497@antu.cfa.harvard.edu> |
| References: | <Pine.SOL.4.58.0312071202250.20497@antu.cfa.harvard.edu> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|
Depending on your 3Ware card, try to create a RAID with 128K or 256K
stripes....128K is the 'normal' blocking factor the kernel uses when
combining reads and writes. Presuming you're doing mostly sequential
access a 128K stripe would be optimal. Now RAID0, vs RAID5 depends....Can you suffer losing a disk and thus losing *all* the data? In RAID0 there is no redundancy, but it is *FAST* very fast. in RAID5 you can lose a drive and run ok well enough to replace the drive and rebuild the arry. RAID5 has some performance penalty, you'll have to look up benchmarks or perform your own to find out exactly what the penalty is. For this much data I would recommend a RAID, and presuming oyu can handle the performance drop RAID5, unless the data is replicated elsewhere and totally non-critical then go ahead and go RAID0 for some pretty blazing fast speeds. --On Sunday, December 07, 2003 12:14 PM -0500 Gaspar Bakos <gbakos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Dear all,
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: advice: 3ware+raid+xfs, Mike Burger |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | TAKE - tweak direct read interface, Nathan Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: advice: 3ware+raid+xfs, Mike Burger |
| Next by Thread: | Re: advice: 3ware+raid+xfs, Feizhou |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |