On 11/10/2009 11:39 AM, Darius S. Naqvi wrote:
> Is there any possibility of having a bitmap chunk size of 512 bytes?
> I know that mdadm rejects anything under 4k. I fear that the
> assumption of the 4k minimum is embedded fairly strongly in the code.
> Can my fear be alleviated?
>
If you're putting any normal filesystem (with a block size of 4k) on
this, then it makes absolutely no sense to have a bitmap size less than
4k as any given filesystem block is either dirty or clean, sub-block
semantics make no sense in this scenario. That said, unless you have a
specific need for this level of granularity, it is a really bad idea
(performance wise and space wise) to go with anything even close to
resembling the granularity you are requesting. I usually go with
--bitmap-chunk=32768 (which since that's expressed in k means
32Megabytes). I would actually suspect that if you have a truly
pressing need for a 512byte bitmap chunk, then you probably don't need a
bare raid, you need some sort of database underlying your data or
something else.
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
http://people.redhat.com/dledford
Infiniband specific RPMs available at
http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
