From: Brian Davis <bridavis@comcast.net>
To: Shailendra Tripathi <stripathi@agami.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Differences in su/sw values for hw vs. sw RAID 5?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:27:31 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <44E9A6B3.8000607@comcast.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <44E94F90.1010606@agami.com>
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure how the information below
maps to setting the values on Hardware RAID.
A nice feature of xfs is that it's intelligent enough to figure out the
proper values for SW RAID.
Thanks!
Shailendra Tripathi wrote:
> For RAID-5 device, for any write, the parity as well has to be
> calculated before writing. In absence of any column of RAID, it is
> read from disk and then re-written. When you choose writes such as all
> columns are already there, parity can be directly calculated and
> written (without incurring any extra read I/O) and that's why,
> declaring in that form is desirable. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
>
> # mdadm --create /dev/md15 --level=5 --raid-devices=3 -c 64 /dev/sd[hvi]1
> mdadm: array /dev/md15 started.
>
> When forced choice of sw=1,su=128k
> # cat /proc/mdstat | more
> ...
> md15 : active raid5 sdv1[2] sdi1[1] sdh1[0]
> 78139904 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/3] [UUU]
> # mkfs.xfs -f -d sw=1,su=128k /dev/md15
> mkfs.xfs: Specified data stripe unit 256 is not the same as the volume
> stripe unit 128
> meta-data=/dev/md15 isize=256 agcount=16,
> agsize=1220928 blks
> = sectsz=512
> data = bsize=4096 blocks=19534848, imaxpct=25
> = sunit=32 swidth=32 blks, unwritten=1
> naming =version 2 bsize=4096
> log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=9568, version=1
> = sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks
> realtime =none extsz=131072 blocks=0, rtextents=0
>
> Though by default, it detects the former one.
>
> # mkfs.xfs -f /dev/md15
> meta-data=/dev/md15 isize=256 agcount=16,
> agsize=1220944 blks
> = sectsz=512
> data = bsize=4096 blocks=19534976, imaxpct=25
> = sunit=16 swidth=32 blks, unwritten=1
> naming =version 2 bsize=4096
>
> Please note that default created here is: sunit=16, swidth=3
> bridavis@comcast.net wrote:
>> I getting conflicting reports as to how I should generate my
>> sunit/swidth vaules for hardware RAID 5.
>>
>> Setup: hardware RAID 5, 3 disks at 300 GBs each, 64k stripe size.
>>
>> Originally, following the man page and the mailing list archives, I
>> came up sw=2,su=64k.
>> However, I read a reply to an earlier question I sent to the list,
>> and it indicated that the hardward RAID should be treated as a single
>> disk, so I came up with sw=1,su=128k.
>>
>> Which one is correct for my setup?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> [[HTML alternate version deleted]]
>>
>>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-21 14:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-08-21 1:55 Differences in su/sw values for hw vs. sw RAID 5? bridavis
2006-08-21 6:15 ` Shailendra Tripathi
2006-08-21 12:27 ` Brian Davis [this message]
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=44E9A6B3.8000607@comcast.net \
--to=bridavis@comcast.net \
--cc=stripathi@agami.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/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