Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*raid\s+10\s+su\,\s+sw\s+settings\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*raid\s+10\s+su\,\s+sw\s+settings\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. raid 10 su, sw settings (score: 1): Author: Brad Langhorst <brad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:00:39 -0500; I have this system - 3ware 9650 controller - 4 disk raid 10 - 64k stripe size - this is a vmware host, so lots of r/w on a few big files. I'm not entirely satisfied with its performance. Typical bloc; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00221.html (8,675 bytes)
2. Re: raid 10 su, sw settings (score: 1): Author: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:04:17 -0500 (EST); On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, Brad Langhorst wrote: I have this system - 3ware 9650 controller - 4 disk raid 10 - 64k stripe size - this is a vmware host, so lots of r/w on a few big files. I'm not entirely s; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00222.html (10,248 bytes)
3. Re: raid 10 su, sw settings (score: 1): Author: Brad Langhorst <brad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:43:06 -0500; Are you saying that i should not expect more? I expect about 70% better performance, since I think a single disk should be able to do 100M/s. Maybe this is unreasonable? I am able to do the remount,; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00224.html (8,768 bytes)
4. Re: raid 10 su, sw settings (score: 1): Author: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:07:27 -0500 (EST); Are you saying that i should not expect more? I expect about 70% better performance, since I think a single disk should be able to do 100M/s. Maybe this is unreasonable? A single disk may do 90MiB/s; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00225.html (10,210 bytes)
5. Re: raid 10 su, sw settings (score: 1): Author: Iustin Pop <iusty@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:17:12 +0100; I agree about the disk speed - 100MiB/s for SATA drives is a little bit too much to expect. And certainly, *only* in purely single-reader or single-writer sequential workloads. I have the same config; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00227.html (10,354 bytes)
6. Re: raid 10 su, sw settings (score: 1): Author: Brad Langhorst <brad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:55:01 -0500; I guess I should re-adjust my expectations Any opinions on the partition layout? Did you go to special effort to layout your partitions on the stripe boundaries (actually i don't really understand th; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00228.html (10,208 bytes)
7. Re: raid 10 su, sw settings (score: 1): Author: Iustin Pop <iusty@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 22:42:23 +0100; So instead of the usual 255 heads, 63 cylinders fake geometry that is not a multiple of anything, I setup 16h/16c geometry that gives a nice power-of-two multiplier so all partitions *should* be alig; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00229.html (9,485 bytes)
8. Re: raid 10 su, sw settings (score: 1): Author: Brad Langhorst <brad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:54:04 -0500; Sorry to be thick... i don't understand this. Do you configure the raid controller with these settings? or is this an fdisk option? thanks! brad; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00230.html (9,148 bytes)
9. Re: raid 10 su, sw settings (score: 1): Author: Iustin Pop <iusty@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 01:15:04 +0100; Note: I'm not even sure it matters, or if I did it right :) It's an fdisk option. For example, "fdisk -H 16 -S 16 /dev/sdX". Also, happy new year! iustin; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00231.html (9,881 bytes)
10. raid 10 su, sw settings (score: 1): Author: Brad Langhorst <brad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:00:39 -0500; I have this system - 3ware 9650 controller - 4 disk raid 10 - 64k stripe size - this is a vmware host, so lots of r/w on a few big files. I'm not entirely satisfied with its performance. Typical bloc; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00453.html (8,675 bytes)
11. Re: raid 10 su, sw settings (score: 1): Author: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:04:17 -0500 (EST); On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, Brad Langhorst wrote: I have this system - 3ware 9650 controller - 4 disk raid 10 - 64k stripe size - this is a vmware host, so lots of r/w on a few big files. I'm not entirely s; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00454.html (10,248 bytes)
12. Re: raid 10 su, sw settings (score: 1): Author: Brad Langhorst <brad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:43:06 -0500; Are you saying that i should not expect more? I expect about 70% better performance, since I think a single disk should be able to do 100M/s. Maybe this is unreasonable? I am able to do the remount,; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00456.html (8,768 bytes)
13. Re: raid 10 su, sw settings (score: 1): Author: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:07:27 -0500 (EST); Are you saying that i should not expect more? I expect about 70% better performance, since I think a single disk should be able to do 100M/s. Maybe this is unreasonable? A single disk may do 90MiB/s; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00457.html (10,210 bytes)
14. Re: raid 10 su, sw settings (score: 1): Author: Iustin Pop <iusty@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:17:12 +0100; I agree about the disk speed - 100MiB/s for SATA drives is a little bit too much to expect. And certainly, *only* in purely single-reader or single-writer sequential workloads. I have the same config; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00459.html (10,354 bytes)
15. Re: raid 10 su, sw settings (score: 1): Author: Brad Langhorst <brad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:55:01 -0500; I guess I should re-adjust my expectations Any opinions on the partition layout? Did you go to special effort to layout your partitions on the stripe boundaries (actually i don't really understand th; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00460.html (10,208 bytes)
16. Re: raid 10 su, sw settings (score: 1): Author: Iustin Pop <iusty@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 22:42:23 +0100; So instead of the usual 255 heads, 63 cylinders fake geometry that is not a multiple of anything, I setup 16h/16c geometry that gives a nice power-of-two multiplier so all partitions *should* be alig; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00461.html (9,485 bytes)
17. Re: raid 10 su, sw settings (score: 1): Author: Brad Langhorst <brad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:54:04 -0500; Sorry to be thick... i don't understand this. Do you configure the raid controller with these settings? or is this an fdisk option? thanks! brad; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00462.html (9,148 bytes)
18. Re: raid 10 su, sw settings (score: 1): Author: Iustin Pop <iusty@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 01:15:04 +0100; Note: I'm not even sure it matters, or if I did it right :) It's an fdisk option. For example, "fdisk -H 16 -S 16 /dev/sdX". Also, happy new year! iustin; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00463.html (9,881 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]