On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 09:16 +1200, Solor Vox wrote:
Hey all,
I'm going to warn you beforehand and say that this message is
technical and academic discussions of the inner-workings of md-RAID
and file systems. If you haven't had your morning coffee or don't
want a headache, please stop
Solor Vox wrote, On 04/09/2010 09:16 AM:
So for argument's sake, lets say that of the
usable 4.5TB, 4TB is for large 8GB and up files. I also plan on
either ext4 or xfs.
Another variable here is fsck time. We found jfs to have the most
consistent fsck times (not the shortest, but never the
Hi Steve,
1. I wouldn't touch ext4 for this.
Why?
2. What about reiser4?
Reiser is much better for smaller files, where ext4 (extents) and xfs
are much better for larger files like I'm using.
3. PARTITIONING! Having just lived through it, watch out for the newer
( WD only?? ) disks with
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 09:39 +1200, Craig Falconer wrote:
Another variable here is fsck time. We found jfs to have the most
consistent fsck times (not the shortest, but never the longest)
However that was for backup drives with lots of files.
JFS is my favourite.
--
http://nicegear.co.nz
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 09:47 +1200, Hadley Rich wrote:
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 09:39 +1200, Craig Falconer wrote:
Another variable here is fsck time. We found jfs to have the most
consistent fsck times (not the shortest, but never the longest)
However that was for backup drives with lots of
On 9 April 2010 10:07, Steve Holdoway st...@greengecko.co.nz wrote:
I note that most* of these NAS boxes use xfs, although that is the only
file system that has completely blown up in my face in the last 10
years!
Steve
* OK, I've only seen about half a dozen of them (:
Have to admit that
-Original Message-
From: Solor Vox [mailto:solor...@gmail.com]
Subject: md RAID
If you're still here, I've been trying to work out the optimal chunk
size, stripe width, and stride for a 6TB RAID-5 array I'm building.
My experience with RAID is all from windows - but it may
Hi Bryce,
My experience with RAID is all from windows - but it may translate to
Linux.
I would have ask why not use Hardware RAID (unless not available) so in
the OS all your dealing with is a single disk setup rather than all this
software RAID complication?
As a side note on the Informix
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 10:33 +1200, Solor Vox wrote:
writes a lot, then RAID10 is better. However, RAID5 has better
cost/GB ratio (N-1 vs N/2 for RAID10) and greatly out performs RAID10
on reads.
You state this as fact... I find it strange, both from theory and
experience. A random, fairly
Bryce Stenberg wrote, On 04/09/2010 10:21 AM:
My experience with RAID is all from windows - but it may translate to
Linux.
I would have ask why not use Hardware RAID (unless not available) so in
the OS all your dealing with is a single disk setup rather than all this
software RAID complication?
On 9 April 2010 10:58, Steve Holdoway st...@greengecko.co.nz wrote:
You state this as fact... I find it strange, both from theory and
experience. A random, fairly recent article ( yeah, it's not brilliant,
but... )
http://www.myhostnews.com/2008/09/optimizing-raid-performance-bencmarks/
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 11:17 +1200, Solor Vox wrote:
Geez, you'd think I posted about using a windows box or something, so
many people going after the thing I didn't ask. O.o
You'd think you weren't grateful for the help either.
On 9 April 2010 11:07, Craig Falconer cfalco...@totalteam.co.nz wrote:
Nice - I saw somewhere that the likelyhood of losing a second drive
increases exponentially once one has failed or started erroring.
One way to reduce that risk is to assemble the raid on drives of different
brands/models
On 9 April 2010 11:20, Hadley Rich h...@nice.net.nz wrote:
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 11:17 +1200, Solor Vox wrote:
Geez, you'd think I posted about using a windows box or something, so
many people going after the thing I didn't ask. O.o
You'd think you weren't grateful for the help either.
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 11:21 +1200, Solor Vox wrote:
On 9 April 2010 11:07, Craig Falconer cfalco...@totalteam.co.nz wrote:
Nice - I saw somewhere that the likelyhood of losing a second drive
increases exponentially once one has failed or started erroring.
One way to reduce that risk is
Solor Vox wrote, On 04/09/2010 11:25 AM:
Sorry, I didn't remember asking for help in choosing RAID type. Guess
I should re-read my own message.
Given some of your earlier comments - I'm guessing this is for a media
PC of some description?
Cos if all you're storing is broadcast TV its
16 matches
Mail list logo
