From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Overmeer Subject: Re: Huge 1.2TB partition Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:01:08 +0200 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040925100108.A7908@speeltuin.ATComputing.nl> References: <1096019417.2726.61.camel@whirl.lab7.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from speeltuin.ATComputing.nl ([195.108.229.26]:43275 "EHLO speeltuin.ATComputing.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269273AbUIYIBJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Sep 2004 04:01:09 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1096019417.2726.61.camel@whirl.lab7.lan>; from stas@itam.nsc.ru on Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:50:17PM +0700 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Stas Nikiforov Cc: Linux-scsi list , rocks_list * Stas Nikiforov (stas@itam.nsc.ru) [040924 11:50]: > I have RAID 5 6x250 SATA storage. > Is it a good idea to have one huge partition > or it is better to split it on smaller logical drives and then use LVM, > for example? > > In any way, what is a preferred filesystem for this storage? > I plan to use it as a mass storage for CFD results. I run a disk-set of 4x250 SATA with an Adaptec 2410SA and a disk-set of 8x250 SATA with an Adaptec 2810SA. In both cases, I have a small disk aside, which I use for the OS, log- files and such. The array is dedicated to my data: satellite images. Usually, having one partition is best, certainly with a file-system which is tuned on large disk-sets. I choose XFS, which is capable of handing much larger partitions. It runs currently on SuSE9.0 with recent 2.6 kernels. My selection is not based on performance tests: the I/O bandwidth of the PCI-bus is my bottleneck. But in my case counts: as long as it is faster than a tape-archive..... and cheap -- MarkOv ------------------------------------------------------------------------ drs Mark A.C.J. Overmeer MARKOV Solutions Mark@Overmeer.net solutions@overmeer.net http://Mark.Overmeer.net http://solutions.overmeer.net