From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: partitioned mirror vs. mirrors of partitions?
Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 19:25:30 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4824DD6A.80909@tmr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48246D57.6080406@sandeen.net>
Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>> Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, I hope this isn't a FAQ, I did do a little searching first...
>>>
>>> I'm looking at using a couple of large disks to mirror a system which
>>> currently has a few different filesystems; I'll use partitions on the
>>> disks to contain the different fileystems.
>>>
>>> It looks like I could mirror sda and sdb, and partition the resulting
>>> md_d0. Or, I could partition sda and sdb, and create mirrors md0, md1,
>>> etc from the partitions on the underlying disks.
>>>
>>> Is there any technical reason to choose one method vs the other? It
>>> seems to me that perhaps on a system with several active partitions from
>>> the same disk, partitioning a single large raid device might allow
>>> better read balancing?
>>>
>>>
>> The reason for going with a partitioned raid is that rebuild after a
>> failure is easier. The reason for NOT going there at the moment is
>> discussed in another thread here, in the current kernel the partitions
>> are not started unless you have an initrd file to make that happen. The
>> last is performance, if you are using the partitions in different ways,
>> and some would benefit from performance while others (/boot comes to
>> mind) need to be simple and reliable, and have minimal requirements for
>> speed. Having partitions on the drive allows you to use different raid
>> levels across partitions, to best fit what you do with that data.
>>
>
> Thanks. In my case I'd just have raid-1 on everything, so don't need
> that granulatiry... Another drawback in my particular case is that the
> Red Hat / Fedora tools don't seem to grok partitioned md, but I can fix
> that ;)
>
> Is there any merit to my notion about better read balancing across the
> entire disk if it's all one md device?
>
Not that I can see, but that doesn't mean you're wrong, just that I
can't think of any reason why the same load on the same drives would be
better balanced.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
"Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-09 23:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-09 1:00 partitioned mirror vs. mirrors of partitions? Eric Sandeen
2008-05-09 6:15 ` michael
2008-05-09 15:19 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-05-09 15:27 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-05-09 23:25 ` Bill Davidsen [this message]
2008-05-09 18:37 ` Peter Grandi
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=4824DD6A.80909@tmr.com \
--to=davidsen@tmr.com \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
/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).