also sprach dean gaudet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.11.03.2019 +0100]:
> > I cannot find authoritative information about the relation between
> > the RAID chunk size and the correct stride parameter to use when
> > creating an ext2/3 filesystem.
> 
> you know, it's interesting -- mkfs.xfs somehow gets the right sunit/swidth 
> automatically from the underlying md device.

i don't know enough about xfs to be able to agree or disagree with
you on that.

> # mdadm --create --level=5 --raid-devices=4 --assume-clean --auto=yes 
> /dev/md0 /dev/sd[abcd]1
> mdadm: array /dev/md0 started.

with 64k chunks i assume...

> # mkfs.xfs /dev/md0
> meta-data=/dev/md0               isize=256    agcount=32, agsize=9157232 
> blks
>          =                       sectsz=4096  attr=0
> data     =                       bsize=4096   blocks=293031424, imaxpct=25
>          =                       sunit=16     swidth=48 blks, unwritten=1

sunit seems like the stride width i determined (64k chunks / 4k
bzise), but what is swidth? Is it 64 * 3/4 because of the four
device RAID5?

> # mdadm --create --level=10 --layout=f2 --raid-devices=4 --assume-clean 
> --auto=yes /dev/md0 /dev/sd[abcd]1
> mdadm: array /dev/md0 started.
> # mkfs.xfs -f /dev/md0
> meta-data=/dev/md0               isize=256    agcount=32, agsize=6104816 blks
>          =                       sectsz=512   attr=0
> data     =                       bsize=4096   blocks=195354112, imaxpct=25
>          =                       sunit=16     swidth=64 blks, unwritten=1

okay, so as before, 16 stride size and 64 stripe width, because
we're now dealing with mirrors.

> # mdadm --create --level=10 --layout=n2 --raid-devices=4 --assume-clean 
> --auto=yes /dev/md0 /dev/sd[abcd]1
> mdadm: array /dev/md0 started.
> # mkfs.xfs -f /dev/md0
> meta-data=/dev/md0               isize=256    agcount=32, agsize=6104816 blks
>          =                       sectsz=512   attr=0
> data     =                       bsize=4096   blocks=195354112, imaxpct=25
>          =                       sunit=16     swidth=64 blks, unwritten=1

why not? in this case, -n2 and -f2 aren't any different, are they?

> in a "near 2" layout i would expect sunit=16, swidth=32 ...  but swidth=64
> probably doesn't hurt.

why?

> that's how i think it works -- i don't think ext[23] have a concept of "stripe
> width" like xfs does.  they just want to know how to avoid putting all the
> critical data on one disk (which needs only the chunk size).  but you should
> probably ask on the linux-ext4 mailing list.

once i understand everything...

-- 
martin;              (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
  \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
spamtraps: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
if you find a spelling mistake in the above, you get to keep it.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)

Reply via email to