From: Bernd Fischer <bernd@begu.net>
To: "Grantham, Ewan R." <egrantham@swri.org>, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Looking for some help with device options
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 18:31:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <40B4C661.2000904@begu.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AF4CBD49C827BA4F9BDD00E297CD804802624917@adsms01.dyn.datasys.swri.edu>
Grantham, Ewan R. wrote:
> My first thought is to break each drive up into multiple 40 Gig
> partitions, and then RAID-5 all the partitions. Would I then be N-1
> based on partition size (so 440 Gigs) or N-1 based on the largest device
> (i.e. 280 Gigs)? Also, would setting up a RAID this way cause lousy
> performance and possibly be less stable - or am I worrying too much?
You would get 440 G, but at at price. Having more than one part of a
RAID5 set on the same drive means that if that drive fails, the whole
array does. Having more than one part of the array on every drive in
effect triples the danger of data loss.
> Finally - any other "interesting" ideas for setting up the space? I
> thought about mixing RAID types on the drives so that I would have a
> RAID-5 of 80 Gig partitions, and then RAID-1 the remaining 120 Gig on
> the two 200 Gig drives. But that strikes me as going particularly far
> out on the limb.
Again, insufficient redundancy on the RAID-5. If you don't care about
that, just use linear RAID or LVM to join partitions of arbitrary sizes.
Otherwise, you lose diskspace and cpu time for no benefit at all.
My setup would be a couple of RAID-1 or 5 devices across all three disks
for the system and vital data, all the leftover bits joined up in a
linear RAID for the not-so-vital stuff. It all depends on what the
machine is suposed to do, though.
Bernd Fischer
prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-05-26 16:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-05-26 11:04 Looking for some help with device options Grantham, Ewan R.
2004-05-26 12:12 ` Daniel Pittman
2004-05-26 16:31 ` Bernd Fischer [this message]
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=40B4C661.2000904@begu.net \
--to=bernd@begu.net \
--cc=egrantham@swri.org \
--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 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).