From: Robin Bowes <robin-lists@robinbowes.com>
To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RAID5 on different sized disks on low-end machine
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:26:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cs1qqb$98l$1@sea.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <eaa6dfe050111111465c7e5b1@mail.gmail.com>
Derek Piper wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I revised my idea and thought about RAID 1+0 for some partitions,
> since there are 4 drives. This outline below might clarify what I was
> trying to mention earlier. Is this a feasible set-up that would be
> bootable (kernel compiled-in md, I'm no stranger to compiling
> kernels)? I'm interested to hear comments/opinions since I've never
> done this before. Like I said, it'll be running on a Dual-pentium pro
> 200 (W6-LI) machine, I have no idea if machines of that vintage have
> the 'cojones' for software raid or not.
>
> My ideas of RAID1+0 / RAID5 disk system partitions
> MB
> /dev/hde 60GB 57241 (from controller)
> /dev/hdf 60GB 57241 (from controller)
> /dev/hdg 60GB 57241 (from controller)
> /dev/hdh 80GB 78125 (unconfirmed)
>
> /dev/hd* = applies to all drives considered here
>
> Device MB Type GB Mountpoint MD device RAIDed size (MB) GB
> /dev/hd*1 20 RAID1 + 0 0.02 /boot /dev/md1 40 0.04
> /dev/hd*2 192 RAID1 + 0 0.19 Swap /dev/md2 384 0.38
> /dev/hd*5 2048 RAID1 + 0 2 / /dev/md5 4096 4
> /dev/hd*6 2048 RAID5 2 /home /dev/md6 6144 6
> /dev/hd*7 52933 RAID5 51.69 /data /dev/md7 158799 155.08
>
> Does swap being raided make sense? I hear that sometimes it's a good
> idea since a disk failure won't make you crash and then I heard
> elsewhere that it doesn't matter and the kernel automatically raids
> swap partitions anyway. I prepared the above in a spreadsheet btw so I
> could work out partition sizes.
>
> Thanks in advance again for any comments.
>
> Derek
>
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:47:20 -0500, Derek Piper <derek.piper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I am new to RAID / md devices, although I've used Linux for a number
>>of years. I decided it was high-time I had a RAID at home for
>>important things (email, web-sites, son's baby pics, mp3s etc.). I
>>happen to have a 3 Seagate 60GB hds and 1 80GB Seagate hd that I am
>>considering using for a RAID.
>>
>>My question is this, is it possible (and even a good idea) to use all
>>4 hard drives as members of a 4 x 60GB RAID5 array by leaving 20GB of
>>the 80GB drive as a non-raided partition? I'll be using a Promise
>>Ultra TX2/100 controller.
>>
>>i.e.
>>
>>hde -> 60
>>hdf -> 60
>>hdg -> 60
>>hdh -> 60/20
>>
>>I heard about RAID6 too, though I'm assuming that will use up another
>>disk's worth of disk space too.
>>
>>i.e. RAID5 = 180GB usable size,wherease RAID6 = 120GB .. am I correct
>>in my thinking?
>>
>>I know many of you use far larger hard drives, I'm just trying to use
>>the components I already had spare from a number of machines and
>>reorganize to a RAID-backed fileserver.
>>
>>The machine is a dual pentium-pro 200 (320MB RAM) .. would that be a
>>dumb idea to use RAID5 on it because of the parity calculations
>>needed?
>>
>>Further to that, would it be a smarter idea to use RAID1 on all 4 of
>>some small partition(s) at the start of the disks to house
>>boot/root/usr partitions, and only RAID5 on a larger 'data' area of
>>the drive that is more likely to be read than written to?
Derek,
I have a machine with 6 x 250GB SATA disks, but the configuration I use
would work just as well for you. Here's what I'd do:
Partition all your drives the same.
Create one small partition of 1GB, plus one large partition using up the
rest of the disk (i.e. around 59GB), *except* the 80GB drive. On this,
create a 1GB partition, a 59GB partition, plus a third partition using
up the rest of the disk (i.e. around 20GB)
Assuming these drives are /dev/hd[efgh], configure them as follows:
/dev/hd[ef]1 /dev/md0 /
/dev/hd[gh]1 /dev/md1 swap
/dev/hd[efgh]2 /dev/md2 lvm volume group
/dev/hdh3 - use for whatever you want!
Now, use lvm to create logical volumes in your large volume group. I
have created /var, /use, and use the rest for /home.
These are my arrays:
[root@dude slimserver]# mdadm --detail --scan
ARRAY /dev/md1 level=raid1 num-devices=2
UUID=be8ad31a:f13b6f4b:c39732fc:c84f32a8
devices=/dev/sdb1,/dev/sde1
ARRAY /dev/md2 level=raid1 num-devices=2
UUID=826170e2:cdd598d4:d212c9b1:6602deef
devices=/dev/sdc1,/dev/sdf1
ARRAY /dev/md5 level=raid5 num-devices=5 spares=1
UUID=a4bbcd09:5e178c5b:3bf8bd45:8c31d2a1
devices=/dev/sda2,/dev/sdb2,/dev/sdc2,/dev/sdd2,/dev/sde2,/dev/sdf2
ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid1 num-devices=2
UUID=4b28338c:bf08d0bc:bb2899fc:e7f35eae
devices=/dev/sda1,/dev/sdd1
These are the lvm logical volumes:
[root@dude slimserver]# lvdisplay
--- Logical volume ---
LV Name /dev/audio_vg/usr_lv
VG Name audio_vg
LV UUID qseH0A-wKgo-xhB5-2tJ4-Qnxx-VOML-0eb43m
LV Write Access read/write
LV Status available
# open 1
LV Size 10.00 GB
Current LE 160
Segments 1
Allocation inherit
Read ahead sectors 0
Block device 253:0
--- Logical volume ---
LV Name /dev/audio_vg/var_lv
VG Name audio_vg
LV UUID nzH8uf-LhyU-o5My-tK48-ckaw-xzfL-esbfj4
LV Write Access read/write
LV Status available
# open 1
LV Size 5.00 GB
Current LE 80
Segments 1
Allocation inherit
Read ahead sectors 0
Block device 253:1
--- Logical volume ---
LV Name /dev/audio_vg/home_lv
VG Name audio_vg
LV UUID zbixtc-S6mb-MTVR-WXGw-dkjG-EU9q-WeZItv
LV Write Access read/write
LV Status available
# open 1
LV Size 914.38 GB
Current LE 14630
Segments 1
Allocation inherit
Read ahead sectors 0
Block device 253:2
This is what my filesystems look like:
[root@dude slimserver]# df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/md0 1.4G 357M 985M 27% /
/dev/mapper/audio_vg-var_lv
5.0G 1.4G 3.3G 30% /var
/dev/mapper/audio_vg-usr_lv
9.9G 2.4G 7.0G 26% /usr
/dev/mapper/audio_vg-home_lv
915G 142G 764G 16% /home
And finally swap:
[root@dude slimserver]# swapon -s
Filename Type Size Used
Priority
/dev/md1 partition 1469816 224 -1
R.
--
http://robinbowes.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-12 0:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-01-11 18:47 RAID5 on different sized disks on low-end machine Derek Piper
2005-01-11 19:10 ` Maarten
[not found] ` <eaa6dfe05011111233e4a515f@mail.gmail.com>
2005-01-11 19:24 ` Derek Piper
2005-01-11 19:14 ` Derek Piper
2005-01-11 19:54 ` Guy
2005-01-12 0:26 ` Robin Bowes [this message]
2005-01-12 14:36 ` Derek Piper
2005-01-14 9:10 ` Norman Schmidt
2005-01-14 10:07 ` Robin Bowes
[not found] ` <eaa6dfe05011411048ad3d4@mail.gmail.com>
2005-01-14 19:05 ` Fwd: " Derek Piper
2005-01-14 23:20 ` berk walker
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='cs1qqb$98l$1@sea.gmane.org' \
--to=robin-lists@robinbowes.com \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
/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.