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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).