From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:00:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web32907.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web32907.mail.mud.yahoo.com [209.191.69.84]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id l8PI0kQ3019402 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:00:48 -0700 Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:00:49 -0700 (PDT) From: "Bryan J. Smith" Reply-To: b.j.smith@ieee.org Subject: Re: mkfs options for a 16x hw raid5 and xfs (mostly large files) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <498689.78850.qm@web32907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Justin Piszcz , Ralf Gross Cc: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Justin Piszcz wrote: > Just out of curisosity have you tried SW RAID5 on this array? > Also what do you get if you use RAID0 (hw or sw)? According to him, if I read it correclty, it is an external FC RAID-5 chassis. I.e., all of the logic is in the chassis. So your question is N/A. Although I'm more than ready to be proven incorrect. Furthermore, what benchmark do you use? If dd on the volume itself, software RAID wins, hands down. Doesn't matter what size you give it, it literally copies (and doesn't recalculate) the parity. It's the rawest form of non-blocking I/O, and uses virtually no system interconnect to the CPU (just pushes disk-mem-disk). -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com -------------------------------------------------- Fission Power: An Inconvenient Solution