From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com>
Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111])
	by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3ABB7F53
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Sat,  1 Feb 2014 12:47:36 -0600 (CST)
Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15])
	by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30CE8F804C
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Sat,  1 Feb 2014 10:47:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from greer.hardwarefreak.com (mo-65-41-216-221.sta.embarqhsd.net
	[65.41.216.221]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id PYpr79Ca6HSXhB6m
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 10:47:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52ED4143.6090303@hardwarefreak.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 12:47:31 -0600
From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: relationship of nested stripe sizes, was: Question regarding
	XFS on LVM over hardware RAID.
References: <7A732267-B34F-4286-9B49-3AF8767C0B89@colorremedies.com>
In-Reply-To: <7A732267-B34F-4286-9B49-3AF8767C0B89@colorremedies.com>
Reply-To: stan@hardwarefreak.com
List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI <xfs.oss.sgi.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/options/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs>
List-Post: <mailto:xfs@oss.sgi.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com
Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com
To: Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com>
Cc: xfs <xfs@oss.sgi.com>

On 1/31/2014 12:35 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Hopefully this is an acceptable way to avoid thread jacking, by
> renaming the  subject=85
> =

> On Jan 30, 2014, at 10:58 PM, Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>
> wrote:
>> =

>> RAID60 is a nested RAID level just like RAID10 and RAID50.  It is
>> a stripe, or RAID0, across multiple primary array types, RAID6 in
>> this case.  The stripe width of each 'inner' RAID6 becomes the
>> stripe unit of the 'outer' RAID0 array:
>> =

>> RAID6 geometry	 128KB * 12 =3D 1536KB RAID0 geometry  1536KB * 3  =3D
>> 4608KB
> =

> My question is on this particular point. If this were hardware raid6,
> but I wanted to then stripe using md raid0, using the numbers above
> would I choose a raid0 chunk size of 1536KB? How critical is this
> value for, e.g. only large streaming read/write workloads? If it were
> smaller, say 256KB or even 32KB, would there be a significant
> performance consequence?

You say 'if it were smaller...256/32KB'.  What is "it" referencing?

-- =

Stan

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs