From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q0KMio96132592 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:44:50 -0600 Received: from greer.hardwarefreak.com (mo-65-41-216-221.sta.embarqhsd.net [65.41.216.221]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id FuzmTNHm70JZ89nF for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:44:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.100.53] (gffx.hardwarefreak.com [192.168.100.53]) by greer.hardwarefreak.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD8076C0B9 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:44:48 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <4F19EE5E.8030508@hardwarefreak.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:44:46 -0600 From: Stan Hoeppner MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Optimal XFS formatting options? References: <33140169.post@talk.nabble.com> <201201171019.58714@zmi.at> <4F155CC2.3050201@hardwarefreak.com> <201201201652.10193@zmi.at> In-Reply-To: <201201201652.10193@zmi.at> Reply-To: stan@hardwarefreak.com List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 1/20/2012 9:52 AM, Michael Monnerie wrote: > On Dienstag, 17. Januar 2012 Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> So to be clear, your issue with the above isn't with my partition >> alignment math WRT the OP's P2000 array, but is with using XFS stripe >> alignment in general, correct? > > Yes. I just wanted to document this as people often expand RAIDs and > forget to apply the changes to stripe width. > >> There is one really simple way around this issue you describe: don't >> add drives to an existing array. Simply create another array with >> new disks, create a new aligned XFS on the array, and mount the >> filesystem in an appropriate location. There is no 11th Commandment >> stating one must have a single massive XFS atop all of one's disks. >> ;) >> >> There is little to no application software today that can't be >> configured to store its data files across multiple directories. So >> there's no need to box oneself into the corner you describe above. > > It's a management burden to do that. I've learned that systems usually > are strictly structured in their configuration, so it's often better to > extend a RAID and to keep the config, as this is cheaper in the end. At > least for the salaries of good admins here in Europe ;-) If ease (or cost) of filesystem administration is of that much greater priority than performance, then why are you using XFS in the first place instead of EXT? -- Stan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs