Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+and\s+RAID5\s*$/: 38 ]

Total 38 documents matching your query.

1. Re: XFS and RAID5 (score: 1)
Author: Robin Humble <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:55:36 +1000 (EST)
I've avoided entering this thread since we're currently not running software RAID5 but thought I'd stick up my paw anyway 'cos we ran it for a fair while and will happily run it again. Around the tim
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00613.html (9,823 bytes)

2. Re: XFS and RAID5 (score: 1)
Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 08:51:30 +0200
I've avoided entering this thread since we're currently not running software RAID5 but thought I'd stick up my paw anyway 'cos we ran it for a fair while and will happily run it again. Around the tim
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00614.html (10,688 bytes)

3. Re: XFS and RAID5 (score: 1)
Author: Ed McKenzie <eem12@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 08:56:24 -0400
Note that ext2 and reiserfs also support >2G files on x86 running 2.4 and proper glibc -- see http://www.suse.de/~aj/linux_lfs.html. (Not that those would be _better_ choices, but XFS is hardly "the
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00618.html (9,302 bytes)

4. Re: XFS and RAID5 (score: 1)
Author: Andrew Klaassen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:13:34 -0400
7 disks? I'm curious: SCSI or IDE? (We're looking into a Promise or 3ware card to allow us to put lots of IDE drives in a box and run software RAID over top, and were wondering if anyone else has had
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00620.html (9,753 bytes)

5. Re: XFS and RAID5 (score: 1)
Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:21:12 +0200
Note that ext2 and reiserfs also support >2G files on x86 running 2.4 and proper glibc -- see http://www.suse.de/~aj/linux_lfs.html. This is over NFS. ReiserFS is somewhat unproven with respect to NF
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00621.html (10,171 bytes)

6. Re: XFS and RAID5 (score: 1)
Author: ctooley@xxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 08:33:51 -0500
Put my first XFS partition into production use this weekend on top of Software RAID 0 sets. The thing that I've found that affects write performance most is the drive itself. We have dedicated a cont
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00622.html (8,516 bytes)

7. Re: XFS and RAID5 (score: 1)
Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:42:16 +0200
7 disks? I'm curious: SCSI or IDE? (We're looking into a Promise or 3ware card to allow us to put lots of IDE drives in a box and run software RAID over top, and were wondering if anyone else has had
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00623.html (10,664 bytes)

8. Re: XFS and RAID5 (score: 1)
Author: Simon Matter <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:51:03 +0200
from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21]) by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A7A757306; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:56:41 +0200 (CEST) Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx Organization: Sauter AG,
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00624.html (11,473 bytes)

9. Re: XFS and RAID5 (score: 1)
Author: Justin Tripp <jtripp@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 08:21:19 -0600 (MDT)
I have used both the 3ware and Promise Raid solutions. Their are two Promise RAID cards. Only one will work with linux and it is a software raid solution. Promise only supports RedHat 6.1,6.2 and Sus
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00625.html (12,820 bytes)

10. Re: XFS and RAID5 (score: 1)
Author: Robin Humble <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 01:36:10 +1000 (EST)
Sorry, I didn't phrase it well - I wasn't talking about any 32bit issues, but that for performance reasons XFS is the best choice for us - it performs well at most file sizes, but tends to win by an
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00630.html (9,989 bytes)

11. Re: XFS and RAID5 (score: 1)
Author: Ed McKenzie <eem12@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 12:28:09 -0400
I agree completely, and in the same situation I'd go with XFS, too. However, it seems that ext2 still has a reputation for not being able to handle large files, which is no longer the case. -ed
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00636.html (9,718 bytes)

12. Re: XFS and RAID5 (score: 1)
Author: Shawn L Johnston <sjohnston@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:29:44 +0000 (GMT)
Sorry for going a little off topic... Have you tried an ICP Vortex GDT6513RS card? I have a server with 9 180 GB scsi drives (baracudas from seagate) that I'd like to have in a single RAID 5 volume.
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00638.html (13,794 bytes)

13. Re: XFS and RAID5 (score: 1)
Author: Robin Humble <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 02:55:26 +1000 (EST)
IDE. Seven 60G maxtor 7200rpm + two Promise ATA 100 cards and using both master and slave on each of the 4 IDE controllers. Contrary to popular belief, using both master and slave only gets you a ~5%
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00644.html (9,850 bytes)

14. Re: XFS and RAID5 (score: 1)
Author: Andrew Klaassen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:17:29 -0400
(?)! That would be very, very good news. Has anybody else tried this? Have you load tested the machines and seen smooth performance degradation, no nasty bottlenecks (or whatever it is that is suppos
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00646.html (9,331 bytes)

15. Re: XFS and RAID5 (score: 1)
Author: Robin Humble <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 04:21:51 +1000 (EST)
yeah - it surprised me too... dunno - I'd like to hear about it if they have... All bonnie++ numbers with RAID0 over 4 disks were pretty much the same whether it was all 4 disks on one (2-port) card,
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00649.html (10,165 bytes)

16. Re: XFS and RAID5 (score: 1)
Author: Ed McKenzie <eem12@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:28:38 -0400
I was curious about this myself and tested it; I found much less performance degradation than expected with UDMA drives in a RAID-0. I don't seem to have the results anymore, but off the top of my he
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00650.html (7,766 bytes)

17. Re: XFS and RAID5 (score: 1)
Author: ctooley@xxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:03:02 -0500
One of the things I noticed with the Promise Ultra66 (may be fixed in Ultra100) was that if a disk failed, both disks on that controller (master and slave) start having a load of problems. Plus there
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00655.html (8,186 bytes)

18. Re: XFS and RAID5 (score: 1)
Author: Ingo Juergensmann <ij@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 21:51:06 +0200
Well, SCSI offers some advantages over IDE whereas IDEs main advantage is its llow price, but beside this Software RAID5 with XFS and SCSI is working fine here since some weeks with 4x old 2 GB disks
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00658.html (10,324 bytes)

19. Re: XFS and RAID5 (score: 1)
Author: Jure Pecar <pegasus@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 00:06:32 +0200
I have at home a 8x 80gb ide setup with 3ware 8port card (jbod config), running sw raid5 and xfs. I can get 45mbps out of it straight, without any tunning. Which is more than enough for this music &
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00665.html (9,384 bytes)

20. Re: XFS and RAID5 (score: 1)
Author: Robin Humble <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:55:36 +1000 (EST)
I've avoided entering this thread since we're currently not running software RAID5 but thought I'd stick up my paw anyway 'cos we ran it for a fair while and will happily run it again. Around the tim
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg01783.html (9,823 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu