* Raid chunksize...
@ 2003-05-28 10:34 Matt
2003-05-28 22:55 ` Tom Vier
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Matt @ 2003-05-28 10:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-raid
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I currently have a software raid0 setup with this configuration
raiddev /dev/md0
raid-level 0
nr-raid-disks 2
nr-spare-disks 0
persistent-superblock 1
chunk-size 4
device /dev/hda2
raid-disk 0
device /dev/hdc2
raid-disk 1
Both drives are 80 gig .. so the total comes out to 160 gig w/ raid0 .. Now is
a chunksize of 4k to small (??), or is it optimal (??). Also I'am curios is
there anyway to change the chunksize w/o lossing the raid array and the
contents inside that array ?
Thanks,
Matt
- - Also Iam not on the list , so any replies please CC to me .. Thanks
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+1JDLleY/n9G/oZ8RAsXCAJ47PYJi6oMWyNHx4ZRRd42XivRacgCfToF/
KV4H0rAQ3kJpSbiofVFxh0E=
=UGvD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Raid chunksize...
2003-05-28 10:34 Raid chunksize Matt
@ 2003-05-28 22:55 ` Tom Vier
2003-05-29 0:40 ` Matt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tom Vier @ 2003-05-28 22:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matt; +Cc: linux-raid
On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 03:34:49AM -0700, Matt wrote:
> raid-level 0
> chunk-size 4
>
> Both drives are 80 gig .. so the total comes out to 160 gig w/ raid0 .. Now is
> a chunksize of 4k to small (??), or is it optimal (??). Also I'am curios is
yes, i definetly think that's too small. try 16, 32, and 64. i'm using 32 w/
reiserfs. the only way to really find the optimal size, is of course to try
different sizes timing what you typically use the drives for.
> there anyway to change the chunksize w/o lossing the raid array and the
> contents inside that array ?
nope.
--
Tom Vier <tmv@comcast.net>
DSA Key ID 0xE6CB97DA
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Raid chunksize...
2003-05-28 22:55 ` Tom Vier
@ 2003-05-29 0:40 ` Matt
2003-05-29 2:01 ` Tom Vier
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Matt @ 2003-05-29 0:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Vier; +Cc: linux-raid
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
what about using raidreconf , to reconfigure the array ??
Matt
On Wednesday 28 May 2003 03:55 pm, you wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 03:34:49AM -0700, Matt wrote:
> > raid-level 0
> > chunk-size 4
> >
> > Both drives are 80 gig .. so the total comes out to 160 gig w/ raid0 ..
> > Now is a chunksize of 4k to small (??), or is it optimal (??). Also I'am
> > curios is
>
> yes, i definetly think that's too small. try 16, 32, and 64. i'm using 32
> w/ reiserfs. the only way to really find the optimal size, is of course to
> try different sizes timing what you typically use the drives for.
>
> > there anyway to change the chunksize w/o lossing the raid array and the
> > contents inside that array ?
>
> nope.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD4DBQE+1VcYleY/n9G/oZ8RAhV7AJ4spTMuOdqn/xItQdWy6ajlguOKnACYpTvN
7LZNH5e8qIX86xx3zGLuaA==
=CQ5j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-05-29 2:01 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-05-28 10:34 Raid chunksize Matt
2003-05-28 22:55 ` Tom Vier
2003-05-29 0:40 ` Matt
2003-05-29 2:01 ` Tom Vier
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).