Keld Jørn Simonsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 09:51:15PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
Recovery after a failed drive would not be an easy operation, and I
cannot imagine it being even close to the raw speed of the device.
I thought this was a problem with most raid types,
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:25:28 -0500, Norman Elton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[ ... ]
normelton The box presents 48 drives, split across 6 SATA
normelton controllers. So disks sda-sdh are on one controller,
normelton etc. In our configuration, I run a RAID5 MD array for
normelton each controller,
This might be related to raid chunk positioning with respect
to LVM chunk positioning. If they interfere there indeed may
be some performance drop. Best to make sure that those chunks
are aligned together.
Interesting. I'm seeing a 20% performance drop too, with default
RAID and LVM chunk
Pure genius! I wonder how many Thumpers have been configured in
this well thought out way :-).
I'm sorry I missed your contributions to the discussion a few weeks ago.
As I said up front, this is a test system. We're still trying a number
of different configurations, and are learning how
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:12:30 -0500, Norman Elton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[ ... ]
normelton Assuming we go with Guy's layout of 8 arrays of 6
normelton drives (picking one from each controller),
Guy Watkins proposed another one too:
«Assuming the 6 controllers are equal, I would make 3 16
Peter Grandi wrote:
In general, I'd use RAID10 (http://WWW.BAARF.com/), RAID5 in
Interesting movement. What do you think is their stance on Raid Fix? :)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
'md' performs wonderfully. Thanks to every contributor!
I pitted it against a 3ware 9650 and 'md' won on nearly every account (albeit on
RAID5 for sequential I/O the 3ware is a distant winner):
http://www.makarevitch.org/rant/raid/#3wmd
On RAID10 f2 a small read-ahead reduces the throughput on
