Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*creating\s+a\s+new\s+80\s+TB\s+XFS\s*$/: 21 ]

Total 21 documents matching your query.

1. creating a new 80 TB XFS (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ems <richard.ems@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:52:40 +0100
Hi list, I am not a storage expert, so sorry in advance for probably some *naive* questions or proposals from me. 8) *INTRO* We are getting new hardware soon and I wanted to check with you my plans f
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00562.html (9,186 bytes)

2. Re: creating a new 80 TB XFS (score: 1)
Author: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:08:05 +0100
Le Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:52:40 +0100 Richard Ems <richard.ems@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> écrivait: If you'd rather go for more safety you could build 2 16 drives RAID-6 arrays instead. I'd be somewhat reluctan
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00563.html (9,478 bytes)

3. Re: creating a new 80 TB XFS (score: 1)
Author: pg_xf2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:52:47 +0000
[ ... ] Well, many storage experts would be impressed by and support such an audacious plan... But I think that wide RAID6 sets and large RAID6 stripes are a phenomenally bad idea, and large filetree
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00564.html (10,482 bytes)

4. Re: creating a new 80 TB XFS (score: 1)
Author: Michael Weissenbacher <mw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:57:40 +0100
Hi Richard! This suggests that you plan to create partitions like /dev/sdX1 on the RAID-6. If you really do (which is not a good idea IMHO because it buys you nothing) you will have to be extra-caref
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00565.html (8,069 bytes)

5. Re: creating a new 80 TB XFS (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:17:56 -0600
Be sure the stripe geometry matches the way the raid controller is set up. You know the size of your acls, so you can probably do some testing to find out how well 512-byte inodes keep ACLs in-line.
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00566.html (11,690 bytes)

6. Re: creating a new 80 TB XFS (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ems <richard.ems@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:43:28 +0100
Thanks, yes, this sounds good, but it's a matter of administration simplicity doing the backups why I chose to have only one volume/partition/XFS. At some point one of both drives will become near to
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00567.html (10,921 bytes)

7. Re: creating a new 80 TB XFS (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ems <richard.ems@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:05:54 +0100
Ok, thanks. I think I will go then to /dev/sdX , no partitions. Richard -- Richard Ems mail: Richard.Ems@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cape Horn Engineering S.L. C/ Dr. J.J. Dómine 1, 5º piso 46011 Valencia Tel
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00570.html (8,776 bytes)

8. Re: creating a new 80 TB XFS (score: 1)
Author: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:20:23 +0100
Am Freitag, 24. Februar 2012 schrieb Richard Ems: Does cat /proc/mounts show them? /proc/mounts is more detailed than mount or mount -l. Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00571.html (9,443 bytes)

9. Re: creating a new 80 TB XFS (score: 1)
Author: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:51:45 -0600
Vanilla kernel.org 3.2.6: ~$ cat /proc/mounts /dev/sda7 /samba xfs rw,relatime,attr2,delaylog,noquota 0 0 It doesn't show the default logbufs and logbsize values. I asked about this specific issue ov
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00572.html (10,582 bytes)

10. Re: creating a new 80 TB XFS (score: 1)
Author: Roger Willcocks <roger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:58:54 +0000
You might consider making a software raid0 from the two raid-6 arrays. -- Roger
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00573.html (9,279 bytes)

11. Re: creating a new 80 TB XFS (score: 1)
Author: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:59:47 +0100
Am Freitag, 24. Februar 2012 schrieb Stan Hoeppner: As I wrote it I thought about that for XFS the option might not be displayed. Cause I remember having seen something similar quite some time ago. W
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00575.html (11,066 bytes)

12. Re: creating a new 80 TB XFS (score: 1)
Author: pg_xf2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 21:57:05 +0000
Please remember that experts reading or responding to this thread have not objected to the (very) aggressive aspects of your setup, so obviously it seems mostly fine to them. Just me pointing out th
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00579.html (14,030 bytes)

13. Re: creating a new 80 TB XFS (score: 1)
Author: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 20:57:05 -0600
Putting an exclamation point on Peter's wisdom requires nothing more than browsing the list archive: I have a large XFS filesystem (60 TB) that is composed of 5 hardware RAID 6 volumes. One of those
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00580.html (10,995 bytes)

14. Re: creating a new 80 TB XFS (score: 1)
Author: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 17:08:20 +0100
Le Sat, 25 Feb 2012 20:57:05 -0600 vous écriviez: Just nitpicking, but I never had such a problem. I've run quite a lot of xfs_repair on 40TB+ filesystems, and it rarely was longer than 10 to 20 minu
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00584.html (9,771 bytes)

15. Re: creating a new 80 TB XFS (score: 1)
Author: Joe Landman <landman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:55:23 -0500
As others mentioned, an xfs_[check|repair] can take many hours or even days on a multi-terabyte huge metadata filesystem. Just nitpicking, but I never had such a problem. I've run quite a lot of xfs
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00585.html (12,035 bytes)

16. Re: creating a new 80 TB XFS (score: 1)
Author: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:56:57 +0100
Am Freitag, 24. Februar 2012, 13:52:40 schrieb Richard Ems: Please remember that it will be 2,79 TiB per drive, that's 78 TiB overall. So it's missing 6 TB in reality, depending on how you calculated
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00598.html (9,640 bytes)

17. Re: creating a new 80 TB XFS (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ems <richard.ems@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:20:00 +0100
Thanks Michael, I have alrady taken this into account. We have now about 40 TB to backup and about 60 TB max. And there is space for 32 more HDDs in the backup system, which we will add later as need
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00600.html (9,157 bytes)

18. Re: creating a new 80 TB XFS (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ems <richard.ems@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 16:28:49 +0200
Hi Eric, This is a reply to an email from you sent 7 months ago ... How could I do the testing you were proposing? How can I find out if my 512-byte inodes keep our ACLs in-line? I am going to create
/archives/xfs/2012-10/msg00001.html (8,604 bytes)

19. Re: creating a new 80 TB XFS (score: 1)
Author: Richard Ems <richard.ems@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 16:36:23 +0200
Hi again, If the "method" is to use "xfs_bmap -a ..." and check for "no extents", then I found it ! Thanks, sorry for the noise, Richard -- Richard Ems mail: Richard.Ems@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cape Horn E
/archives/xfs/2012-10/msg00002.html (9,286 bytes)

20. Re: creating a new 80 TB XFS (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 09:39:01 -0500
you can use the xfs_bmap tool to map the attribute fork by using the "-a" option. If it lists any block numbers, then it's outside the inode. If you have varying sizes of acls, you'd just iterate ove
/archives/xfs/2012-10/msg00003.html (8,946 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu