On 2015-08-17 19:06, Duncan wrote:
Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:38:13 -0400 as
excerpted:
I've also found that BTRFS raid5/6 on top of MD RAID0 mitigates (to a
certain extent that is) the performance penalty of doing raid5/6 if you
aren't on ridiculously fast storage,
Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:34:09 -0400 as
excerpted:
4-device raid6, btrfs and mdraid both allow that, good point. But of
course mdraid6 doesn't have the data integrity, only rebuild-parity.
Huh, I didn't know that mdraid allowed that, I know dm-raid through LVM
On 2015-08-15 02:30, Duncan wrote:
Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:58:30 -0400 as
excerpted:
FWIW, running BTRFS on top of MDRAID actually works very well,
especially for BTRFS raid1 on top of MD-RAID0 (I get an almost 50%
performance increase for this usage over BTRFS
Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:38:13 -0400 as
excerpted:
I've also found that BTRFS raid5/6 on top of MD RAID0 mitigates (to a
certain extent that is) the performance penalty of doing raid5/6 if you
aren't on ridiculously fast storage, probably not something that should
be
Hi Calvin.
thanks a lot for the quick answer and sorry for my delayed to reply.
We got some security issues at some machines. I will answer almost al
the replies below.
Yes raid0 is huge risk. This setup is just for performance demos and
other very specific occasions.
I understand the the need
The bether xfs performance we got was using 32 disks and 128KB mdadm chunk size.
Could the be the problem we are seen? if each disk get 4KB, 64KB will
be optimal for just 16 disks when usint raid0 with btrfs?
2015-08-14 15:31 GMT-03:00 Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015
On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 16:44 -0300, Eduardo Bach wrote:
Based on previous testing with a smaller number of disk I'm
suspecting
that the 32 disks are not all being used. With 12 discs I got more
speed with btrfs thanmdadm+xfs. With, btrfs, 12 disks and large files
we got the entire theoretical
Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:58:30 -0400 as
excerpted:
FWIW, running BTRFS on top of MDRAID actually works very well,
especially for BTRFS raid1 on top of MD-RAID0 (I get an almost 50%
performance increase for this usage over BTRFS raid10, although most of
this is
Hi all,
This is my first email to this list, so please excuse any gaffe.
I am in the evaluation early stages of a new storage, an SGI MIS,
currently with two HBAs LSI and 32 disks.
The hba controllers are LSI 9207-8i and the disks are Seagate 6TB,
model ST6000NM0004-1FT17Z.
To evaluate the
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
ahferro...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2015-08-14 14:31, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Eduardo Bach hellb...@gmail.com wrote:
With btrfs the result approaches 3.5GB/s. When using mdadm+xfs the
result reaches 6gb/s, which is
On 2015-08-14 15:54, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
ahferro...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2015-08-14 14:31, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Eduardo Bach hellb...@gmail.com wrote:
With btrfs the result approaches 3.5GB/s. When using
On 2015-08-14 14:31, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Eduardo Bach hellb...@gmail.com wrote:
With btrfs the result approaches 3.5GB/s. When using mdadm+xfs the
result reaches 6gb/s, which is the expected value when compared with
parallel dd made on discs.
mdadm with what
On Fri, 2015-08-14 at 12:16 -0300, Eduardo Bach wrote:
Hi all,
This is my first email to this list, so please excuse any gaffe.
I am in the evaluation early stages of a new storage, an SGI MIS,
currently with two HBAs LSI and 32 disks.
The hba controllers are LSI 9207-8i and the disks are
On Fri, 2015-08-14 at 12:30 -0400, Calvin Walton wrote:
On Fri, 2015-08-14 at 12:16 -0300, Eduardo Bach wrote:
Hi all,
This is my first email to this list, so please excuse any gaffe.
I am in the evaluation early stages of a new storage, an SGI MIS,
currently with two HBAs LSI and
14 matches
Mail list logo
