use 1TB sized blocks... that is the most efficient... On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Pat O'Brien <p...@petta-tech.com> wrote:
> In four years of working with hosts in data centers I have seen hundreds of > drives fail. If it was data you didn't care about then sure, no RAID or > RAID0 is fine, but if it's data that you can't lose, or an application which > you can't have any downtime then I would rethink your plan. > > If it's software RAID that is failing I would suggest either looking > towards the hardware route. > > /2 cents > > -pat > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Jeff Lasman <jpli...@nobaloney.net>wrote: > >> On Friday, April 29, 2011 02:04:56 pm Jeff Lasman wrote: >> >> > With such huge drives, and Maildir directories installed in /home (in >> > Maildir each email is in its own file), what should I look at in terms >> of >> > block sizes and maximum inodes, to keep maximum efficiency in drive >> space >> > usage, in speed of access, and in memory usage. >> > >> > My biggest concern is in the minimum size of a file. Maildir uses a >> > separate file for each email. For example, how much space will a 3.0k >> > email take up by default on a 1.6 TB partition vs on a 3.2 TB partition, >> >> I think I may have figured it out. I already knew how to form a Google >> search >> to tell me the size of a partition, and I found commmands to tell me the >> size >> of a block (is that the minimum file size?), and the maximum number of >> inodes. >> >> Then I checked some or my machines running 32-bit CentOS 5.5 with small >> (86G) >> home partitions, and one on a 64-bit CentOS 5.5-based system with an 830G >> home >> partition. >> >> They all use a 4096-byte block size, which I now believe is the standard >> irrespective of partition size (ext3). Does anyone know if that's true? >> >> And on that largest machine I've got 224.5 million inodes available. >> >> So it appears I'll not have a problem building out a system with a very >> large >> /home partition size. >> >> Now my question is, with 2 2TB drives should I use them as one 4TB file >> system, or 2 2TB file systems. >> >> Before thinking that I'd be foolish to give up the advantage of RAID >> (since >> 2TB is probably enough for this system) let me point out that in over ten >> years running software RAID in datacenters, Only twice have I had drive >> failures, but I have often had RAID failures and have had to rebuild. I'm >> not >> sure that with modern SATA drives and daily backups RAID is that >> important. >> >> >> Any comments on my RAID issue? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Jeff >> -- >> Jeff Lasman >> Post Office Box 52200, Riverside, CA 92517 >> Our jplists address used on lists is for list email only >> Phone +1 909 266-9209, or see: "http://www.nobaloney.net/contactus.html"; >> _______________________________________________ >> LinuxUsers mailing list >> LinuxUsers@socallinux.org >> http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers >> > > > _______________________________________________ > LinuxUsers mailing list > LinuxUsers@socallinux.org > http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers > >
_______________________________________________ LinuxUsers mailing list LinuxUsers@socallinux.org http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers
