linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Brad Campbell <brad@wasp.net.au>
To: Guy <bugzilla@watkins-home.com>
Cc: 'Stephan van Hienen' <raid@a2000.nu>, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: raid5 code ok with 2TB + ?
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 23:20:12 +0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <41AA24EC.5020206@wasp.net.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200411281819.iASIJmN00402@www.watkins-home.com>

Guy wrote:
> Your 2.2T array is not as big as you think!
> 
> 1TB = 2^40 not 1*10^12
> Maybe depending on if you are buying disk drives, or selling them! :)
> But when related to the 2TB limit it is 2^40.
> 
> 2206003968 blocks
> Divide by 1024 gives you 2154300.75 meg
> Divide by 1024 gives you 2103.8093 Gig
> Divide by 1024 gives you 2.0545 TB
> So you are just over 2TB. by 58520320 blocks or 55.8 Gig.
> 
> The only reason I am being exact is that you have not tested disk I/O beyond
> 2TB as much as you think.  Once, someone else made a similar 2T claim, after
> the math he was really below 2T.

Fair call. Having said that, if the code wrapped at 2TB then I would have blown away the 1st 55.8 
Gig of my partition, which would be enough to prove the code faulty :p)

-- 
Brad
                    /"\
Save the Forests   \ /     ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
Burn a Greenie.     X      AGAINST HTML MAIL
                    / \

  reply	other threads:[~2004-11-28 19:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-11-28 10:48 raid5 code ok with 2TB + ? Stephan van Hienen
2004-11-28 10:57 ` Brad Campbell
2004-11-28 11:19   ` Stephan van Hienen
2004-11-28 11:28     ` Brad Campbell
2004-11-28 18:19   ` Guy
2004-11-28 19:20     ` Brad Campbell [this message]
2004-11-28 20:17       ` raid5 code ok with 2TB + ? NEGATIVE :( Stephan van Hienen
2004-11-28 20:27         ` Stephan van Hienen
2004-11-28 20:45           ` Stephan van Hienen
2004-11-28 23:34             ` raid5 code ok with 2TB + ? Stephan van Hienen
2004-11-29  4:49               ` Guy
2004-11-29  8:33                 ` Stephan van Hienen
2004-11-29  8:51                   ` raid5 slow Stephan van Hienen
2004-11-29 17:13                     ` Guy
2004-11-29 18:11                       ` Stephan van Hienen
2004-11-30  0:06                         ` raid5 slow (looks like 2.6 problem) Stephan van Hienen
2004-11-30  0:30                     ` raid5 slow Neil Brown
2004-11-30  0:50                       ` Stephan van Hienen
2004-11-30 19:37                         ` Stephan van Hienen
2004-11-30 23:26                           ` Neil Brown
2004-11-30 23:39                             ` Stephan van Hienen
2004-11-30 23:55                             ` Stephan van Hienen
2004-12-01 19:23                               ` raid5 slow (test on another system) Stephan van Hienen
2004-12-01 22:21                                 ` Stephan van Hienen
2004-12-02 22:01                                   ` Stephan van Hienen

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=41AA24EC.5020206@wasp.net.au \
    --to=brad@wasp.net.au \
    --cc=bugzilla@watkins-home.com \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=raid@a2000.nu \
    /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).