Linux RAID subsystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Duane <duane@evenson.tk>
To: linux-raid <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: very large data-offset?
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:26:19 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <90b20eae-9e2a-749f-abd7-36f4c8f252c2@evenson.tk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5A1FE135.8090000@youngman.org.uk>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2135 bytes --]



On 2017-11-30 03:45 AM, Wols Lists wrote:
> On 30/11/17 10:26, Duane wrote:
>> Why is the data offset set so big? I created a 3x4TB RAID5 array and the
>> data offset was 128MB. Chunk size was the default 512kB.
>>
>> I cannot see why such a large offset is used. I would think the data
>> offset need only be at most the chunk size plus the space (1 sector) for
>> the superblock and bitmap.
>>
>> When reshaping the array, I am prompted to use an external file, so I
>> don't see that mdadm ever uses the space.
>>
> Do you mean the manual tells you, or that mdadm refuses to run otherwise?
>
> Certainly with a new array on larger disks, a backup file should be
> totally unnecessary.
>
> Run a reshape of some sort, and see if the offset changes :-)
Reshaping won't run and suggests the use of the backup file.
I like the way mdadm gives helpful hints rather than fails quietly. :)

I don't have the space right now to grow the array device sizes and 
watch for changes in the data offset.
It is going on my todo list for when I've quit reshaping my filesystem 
and things have stabilized.
>> I tried making some test arrays and got much smaller sizes. A 3x1GB
>> RAID5 array with 64k chunks had a 1MB data offset.
>>
>>
>> If I make a 7x4TB RAID5 array with 64kB chunks, is there a problem with
>> setting the data offset to around 2MB?
>>
> Dunno. How do you know the bitmap is "just one block"? I haven't dug in
> to it so I don't know, but it makes sense to me that as the disks get
> bigger, so does the bitmap.
I misspoke. I wasn't paying too much attention to bitmaps: just saw a 
value for bitmap offset in the header and assumed I had a bitmap. 
Further investigation due to your question showed that I don't have a 
bitmap by default.
>
> What's the point of fighting the defaults, anyway? Just add
> another/bigger disk if you need more space.
I'm poor; 5, now 6 disks are my budget's limit. :(
>
> Cheers,
> Wol
>
> --
> 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


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: duane.vcf --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard; name="duane.vcf", Size: 4 bytes --]

null

  reply	other threads:[~2017-12-05  3:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-11-30 10:26 very large data-offset? Duane
2017-11-30 10:45 ` Wols Lists
2017-12-05  3:26   ` Duane [this message]
2017-12-04  0:51 ` NeilBrown
2017-12-05  3:33   ` Duane
2017-12-05 21:53     ` NeilBrown

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=90b20eae-9e2a-749f-abd7-36f4c8f252c2@evenson.tk \
    --to=duane@evenson.tk \
    --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