Hello,
I'm going to setup a software raid over iSCSI. While I probably should
ask my question to the raid people, my guess was someone here might
have experience with this.
I'm going to use the following topology:
There will be 2 storage servers exporting targets. Other physical
machines will i
like this?
http://groups.google.com/group/open-iscsi/browse_thread/thread/4caaf406fe8165ab/f021bae5e175ed59#f021bae5e175ed59
2008/12/22 Eric
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm going to setup a software raid over iSCSI. While I probably should
> ask my question to the raid people, my guess was someone here migh
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Eric wrote:
> Apart from the standard optimizations, there's one I haven't been able
> to find any information on. It is suggested that initiators, using the
> disks (in this case the virtualized machines) should use a head and
> cylinder count that is divisable
Yuri,
Assuming the disks used by your raid are targets originating from
different servers, then yes.
On Dec 22, 11:27 am, Yuri wrote:
> like
> this?http://groups.google.com/group/open-iscsi/browse_thread/thread/4caaf4...
>
> 2008/12/22 Eric
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hello,
>
> > I'm going to setup a
We'd be using "iSCSI Enterprise Target" (iscsitarget.sourceforge.net).
Ofcourse, the target implementation to use in this setup is open for
discussion.
On Dec 22, 12:00 pm, "Bart Van Assche"
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Eric wrote:
> > Apart from the standard optimizations, there'
On 22 Dec 2008 at 2:19, Eric wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm going to setup a software raid over iSCSI. While I probably should
> ask my question to the raid people, my guess was someone here might
> have experience with this.
>
> I'm going to use the following topology:
>
> There will be 2 storage
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Ulrich Windl
wrote:
> I think since ZBR (Zone Bit Recording) the number of sectors per cylinder is
> variable. thus it makes no sense for any higher-level disk software to try to
> deal
> with heads or cylinders. Since ATA (about 1990) only the controller on the
Ulrich,
According to what I read, whilst not directly affecting the physical
disk, heads and cylinders do matter. It has something to do with the
IO scheduler where it causes misalignemnt. It's a long story but it
comes down to roughly twice the disk activity than is actually
necessary. It seems
Bart,
Thanks for definitive answer and the link to a great thread. I need
one more:
I have to set the heads and cylinders on the disk partitions of the
virtualized servers. Now I assume I also have to set heads and
cylinders on the raid partions, exported by the targets. Is this
assumption corre
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Eric wrote:
>
> Thanks for definitive answer and the link to a great thread. I need
> one more:
>
> I have to set the heads and cylinders on the disk partitions of the
> virtualized servers. Now I assume I also have to set heads and
> cylinders on the raid partion
Bart,
My use of the term partitions is terrible abuse ofcourse. I mean the
CHS layout ofcourse.
I've a semi-production test setup where I will apply these changes and
see what happens. The setup is far from ideal because if have some
cheap-ass 3com switches which don't support jumbo frames or 80
On 22 Dec 2008 at 5:11, Eric wrote:
> Besides that, I don't think I totally agree on your statement. Letting
> the IO scheduler taking the actual disk geometry into account, should
> give more performance. However, the fdisk default values are probably
> standard for disks these days.
The disk s
12 matches
Mail list logo
