From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
To: kbyrd-linuxraid@memcpy.com
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Different sized disks for RAID1+0 or RAID10.
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:00:11 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <470E569B.8060108@tmr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a7536e3a85cf047191dc21e5a11f00f4@memcpy.com>
Kelly Byrd wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:38:04 -0400, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> wrote:
>
>> Kelly Byrd wrote:
>>
>>> I've currently got a pair of identical drives in a RAID1 set for
>>> my data partition. I'll be getting a pair of bigger drives in a
>>> bit, and I was wondering if I could RAID1 those (of course) and
>>> then RAID0 the two differently sized mds. Even better, will RAID10
>>> let me do this?
>>>
>>>
>> RAID-10 will let you do this, read past threads of this list for
>> discussion of using the "far" option to gain performance.
>>
>>> I don't need to grow the current RAID1 into this new beast, I've
>>> got a place I can copy the existing data so I can start from
>>> scratch.
>>>
>>>
>
> Doesn't the 'far' option trade write performance to gain read
> performance? This is a desktop, not at all a "mostly read" type
> workload.
>
>
Is your load not read-mostly? The things I want to have happen quickly
are things like boot, start application, load a document, saved page, or
man page, compile a kernel (that may not be typical), play an mp3 or
video, load image(s) in gimp or similar, read mail... all things which
feel faster if you favor read performance.
I think of it this way: most of the stuff I write is buffered by the
system and I don't have to wait for it (unless it's huge). Most of the
large stuff I read, as noted above, is stuff I wait for.
If you look at the times you have to wait for i/o, I bet you will decide
a desktop is read-mostly after all.
>
>>> I imagine the answer is: "sure RAID10 / RAID0 let's you do this,
>>> but you don't get the striping performance benefit" for some of
>>> the data", which would be ok with me until the smaller drives go
>>> bad and I replace them.
>>>
>>>
>> Replacing the smaller drives could be an adventure if you plan to go to
>> larger replacement drives. I don't recall the issues involved with using
>> larger partitions and RAID-10, there's another issue for you to research.
>>
>>
>
> Will do.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
--
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-11 17:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-10 13:12 Different sized disks for RAID1+0 or RAID10 Kelly Byrd
2007-10-11 15:38 ` Bill Davidsen
2007-10-11 16:15 ` Kelly Byrd
2007-10-11 17:00 ` Bill Davidsen [this message]
2007-10-11 17:29 ` Goswin von Brederlow
2007-10-12 16:08 ` Bill Davidsen
2007-10-11 22:25 ` Neil Brown
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=470E569B.8060108@tmr.com \
--to=davidsen@tmr.com \
--cc=kbyrd-linuxraid@memcpy.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 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).