From: Luca Berra <bluca@comedia.it>
To: linux-lvm@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Volume alignment over RAID
Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 09:36:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100522073622.GC12294@maude.comedia.it> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BF6D60E.4020306@tlinx.org>
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:50:54AM -0700, Linda A. Walsh wrote:
> Lyn Rees wrote:
>> > 192.00K is listed as the start of each! GRR...why would that
>>> be a default...I suppose it works for someone, but it's NOT a power of 2!
>>> Hmph!
>>
>> 192 is a multiplier of 64... so it's aligned - assuming you used the whole
>> disk as a PV (you didn't partition the thing first).
it is chunk aligned, not stripe aligned, reads would be ok, but
writes...
> Isn't 64 the amount written / disk, so the strip size is 256K?
> Wouldn't that make each strip have 1 64K chunk written odd,
> and the next 3 written in the next 'row'....
> I suppose maybe it doesn't matter...but when you break the pv up into
> vg's and lvs, somehow it seems odd to have them all skewed by 64K...
it will cause multiple R-M-W cycles fro writes that cross stripe
boundary, not good.
> Anyway...I wanted to redo the array anyway. I didn't like the performance
> I was getting, so thought I'd try RAID 50. I was only getting 150-300 on
> writes/reads on the RAID60 which seemed a bit low. I get more than that
> on a a 4-data-disk RAID5 (200/400). It's a bit of pain to do all this
> reconfiguring now, but better now than when they are all full! It was
> a mistake to do RAID60, though I don't know if the performance on a
> 10data-disk RAID6 would be any better for writes...still has to do
> alot of XORing even with a hardware card.
the choice between raid5 and raid6 has a lot to do with data safety.
also other constraints would mandate the use of spare drives in the
raid5 case. personally i prefer striping smaller redundant sets for
critical data. not to say that 10 is not a power of 2 and aligning lvm
becomes interesting.
> I had 2x6 and am going to try 4x3disks, so my hmmm....I guess now that I
> think about it my strip size was really 8, not 4, since I had 2 of them.
yes it was 8
> But I'll still have a strip width of 8 with 4x3 RAID5's. I don't know if it
> will be much faster or not...but guess I'll see.
--
Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it
Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
/"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
X AGAINST HTML MAIL
/ \
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-22 7:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-20 21:24 [linux-lvm] Volume alignment over RAID Linda A. Walsh
2010-05-21 5:10 ` Luca Berra
2010-05-21 6:48 ` Linda A. Walsh
2010-05-21 7:19 ` Lyn Rees
2010-05-21 18:50 ` Linda A. Walsh
2010-05-22 7:36 ` Luca Berra [this message]
2010-05-22 7:23 ` Luca Berra
2010-05-27 16:40 ` Doug Ledford
2010-06-21 4:26 ` [linux-lvm] RAID chunk size & LVM 'offset' affecting RAID stripe alignment Linda A. Walsh
2010-06-23 18:59 ` Doug Ledford
2010-06-25 8:36 ` Linda A. Walsh
2010-06-26 1:50 ` Doug Ledford
2010-06-28 18:56 ` Charles Marcus
2010-06-29 21:33 ` Linda A. Walsh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100522073622.GC12294@maude.comedia.it \
--to=bluca@comedia.it \
--cc=linux-lvm@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.