Lyn Rees wrote:
> 192.00K is listed as the start of each! GRR...why would that
be a default...I suppose it works for someone, but it's NOT a power of 2!
Hmph!
192 is a multiplier of 64... so it's aligned - assuming you used the
whole disk as a PV (you didn't partition the thing first).
---
Isn't 64 the amount written / disk, so the strip size is 256K?
Wouldn't that make each strip have 1 64K chunk written odd,
and the next 3 written in the next 'row'....
I suppose maybe it doesn't matter...but when you break the pv up into
vg's and lvs, somehow it seems odd to have them all skewed by 64K...
But I haven't worked with RAIDS that much, so it's probably just a
conceptual thing in my head.
Anyway...I wanted to redo the array anyway. I didn't like the performance
I was getting, so thought I'd try RAID 50. I was only getting 150-300 on
writes/reads on the RAID60 which seemed a bit low. I get more than that
on a a 4-data-disk RAID5 (200/400). It's a bit of pain to do all this
reconfiguring now, but better now than when they are all full! It was
a mistake to do RAID60, though I don't know if the performance on
a 10data-disk RAID6 would be any better for writes...still has to do
alot of XORing even with a hardware card.
I had 2x6 and am going to try 4x3disks, so my hmmm....I guess now that
I think about it my strip size was really 8, not 4, since I had 2 of them.
But I'll still have a strip width of 8 with 4x3 RAID5's. I don't know if it
will be much faster or not...but guess I'll see.
_______________________________________________
linux-lvm mailing list
linux-lvm@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
