linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Robinson <john.robinson@anonymous.org.uk>
To: Jon@eHardcastle.com
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Is this likely to cause me problems?
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:14:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C9B52BB.1060204@anonymous.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <965225.13513.qm@web51302.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

On 22/09/2010 15:38, Jon Hardcastle wrote:
[...]
> Thanks for your help. I have been doing some background reading and am concinving myself to leave the boundaries as they are as it appears there is performance gains to be had? Assuming this is true as long as the parition size is LARGER than the other 1TB paritions I should be ok, right?
>
> Device Boot         Start  End          Blocks
> /dev/sda1              63  1953520064   976760001
> /dev/sdc1            2048  1953525167   976761560
>
> If i subtract Start from End
> sda = 1953520064 - 63   = 1953520001
> sdc = 1953525167 - 2048 = 1953523119 (3118 larger than sda)
>
> as long as sdc is larger which it is by 3118 I should be ok right?
>
> I am even thinking about individually removeing my drives from the array and letting fdisk use its new calculations for the existing drives. I could do with better performance!

Don't do that. There is no performance benefit from aligning your 
partitions. There would be a performance benefit to making LVM align 
itself correctly over md RAID stripes, and the filesystem over LVM or md 
RAID, but there is no performance benefit from aligning md RAID over 
partitions, *unless* you have 4K sector drives or SSD.

Honestly you are better off duplicating your original partition table 
onto your new drive so all your partitions are the same, mostly so there 
can't be any more confusion later on.

Cheers,

John.

  reply	other threads:[~2010-09-23 13:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-09-21 20:33 Is this likely to cause me problems? Jon Hardcastle
2010-09-21 21:15 ` John Robinson
2010-09-21 21:18   ` Jon Hardcastle
2010-09-21 22:34     ` John Robinson
2010-09-22  6:42   ` Jon Hardcastle
2010-09-22 11:25     ` John Robinson
2010-09-22 14:38       ` Jon Hardcastle
2010-09-23 13:14         ` John Robinson [this message]
     [not found] <94202.62107.qm@web51304.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
2010-09-22  9:09 ` Tim Small

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=4C9B52BB.1060204@anonymous.org.uk \
    --to=john.robinson@anonymous.org.uk \
    --cc=Jon@eHardcastle.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).