All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: partitioned mirror vs. mirrors of partitions?
Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 19:25:30 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4824DD6A.80909@tmr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48246D57.6080406@sandeen.net>

Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>   
>> Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi, I hope this isn't a FAQ, I did do a little searching first...
>>>
>>> I'm looking at using a couple of large disks to mirror a system which
>>> currently has a few different filesystems; I'll use partitions on the
>>> disks to contain the different fileystems.
>>>
>>> It looks like I could mirror sda and sdb, and partition the resulting
>>> md_d0.  Or, I could partition sda and sdb, and create mirrors md0, md1,
>>> etc from the partitions on the underlying disks.
>>>
>>> Is there any technical reason to choose one method vs the other?  It
>>> seems to me that perhaps on a system with several active partitions from
>>> the same disk, partitioning a single large raid device might allow
>>> better read balancing?
>>>   
>>>       
>> The reason for going with a partitioned raid is that rebuild after a 
>> failure is easier. The reason for NOT going there at the moment is 
>> discussed in another thread here, in the current kernel the partitions 
>> are not started unless you have an initrd file to make that happen. The 
>> last is performance, if you are using the partitions in different ways, 
>> and some would benefit from performance while others (/boot comes to 
>> mind) need to be simple and reliable, and have minimal requirements for 
>> speed. Having partitions on the drive allows you to use different raid 
>> levels across partitions, to best fit what you do with that data.
>>     
>
> Thanks.  In my case I'd just have raid-1 on everything, so don't need
> that granulatiry...  Another drawback in my particular case is that the
> Red Hat / Fedora tools don't seem to grok partitioned md, but I can fix
> that ;)
>
> Is there any merit to my notion about better read balancing across the
> entire disk if it's all one md device?
>   

Not that I can see, but that doesn't mean you're wrong, just that I 
can't think of any reason why the same load on the same drives would be 
better balanced.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  "Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
  be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark 



  reply	other threads:[~2008-05-09 23:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-05-09  1:00 partitioned mirror vs. mirrors of partitions? Eric Sandeen
2008-05-09  6:15 ` michael
2008-05-09 15:19 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-05-09 15:27   ` Eric Sandeen
2008-05-09 23:25     ` Bill Davidsen [this message]
2008-05-09 18:37 ` Peter Grandi

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=4824DD6A.80909@tmr.com \
    --to=davidsen@tmr.com \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
    /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.