[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: RAID stripe size (was: 5.1 RAID5 write performance)
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 10:38:07AM -0700, Brian Buhrow wrote:
> Hello. I like this explanation. Can you help clarify by giving a
> theoretical example?
If sectPerSU is the per-component stripe size, and let's say you have 4 disks
(components), then I think the total size of a stripe will be 4*sectPerSU.
If, for example, you create your filesystem with blocksize 32k, you'll
want your sectPerSU to be 16 (i.e. 16 * 512 = 8k).
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
> On Jun 6, 9:50am, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> } Subject: Re: RAID stripe size (was: 5.1 RAID5 write performance)
> } On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 03:24:15PM +0200, Edgar Fu? wrote:
> } > > Ah, yes, the old
> cycle. Gets me every time.
> } > OK, I've fixed that (before doing the tests I reported the last two days).
> } >
> } > So, what's the advantage of a larger sectPerSU?
> } > It appears to me that the raidctl manpage should note that
> } > -- the stripe size should match fsbsize
> } Wait. I didn't notice this until just now. This is not right.
> } The filesystem block size (or, where this is not possible, the maximum
> } cluster size the filesystem will write) should be equal to sectPerSU
> } times the number of data (not parity) disks. The sectPerSU value is
> } the *per-component* stripe size, not the total amount of data written
> } across all components in one stripe.
> } Thor
> >-- End of excerpt from Thor Lancelot Simon
Main Index |
Thread Index |