On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:41:44 +0000 wilsonjonathan <piercing_male@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I realise that what I am attempting is not very standard in terms of > raid, however this is my logic and reasoning... > > I am setting up a home server that while on 24/7 will only be in use > when either myself (linux) or my son (windows) are using it, so usage > will vary and power concerns (Electricity in the UK is extortionately > priced!) and longevity are important. > > My set up in theory is the following using GPT partitioning. > > >sda 6 partitions > >>free space 1MiB > >>sda1 bios_boot 1MiB > >>sda2 /boot 200MiB raid1 md2 > >>sda3 / 8GiB raid1 md3 > >>sda4 *swap 9GiB (will be "raided" using pri=1) > >>sda5 /download 40GiB raid10 md4 > >>sda6 /thecube ~950Gib raid6 md5 > >>free space ~20MiB > > > >sdb same as sda > > > >sdc 1 partition > >>free space enough space to place sdc6 the same start as sda6 > >>sdc6 /thecube same as sda6 > >>free space > > > >sd[df] same as sdc > > The reason for partitioning this way is that all w.i.p. or downloads, > torrents, etc. will first go into /download and once complete will be > moved into /thecube for long term read only storage > > As /thecube is going to be used less often than sd[ab] it would be > advantages to have sd[df] power down and when the system is not in use > at all have sd[ab] also power down. > > This should increase the lifespan of the drives... and yes I do know > that drives are more likely to fail when powering up, but I also have > real life evidence when I used to work on AS/400s that they fail on > power up if they have hardly ever been turned off more often than if > they have regular power off/on cycles :-) > > I may even look at suspend to ram and magic packets if the system is not > accessed in say 1 hour, although this is less likely to be implemented! > > Ok so that’s the reasoning behind the question. > > > > I do have a couple of related questions... > > I have already done some testing by setting up sd[ab] for md[2-4] but > with no file systems on top, and then pulling sdb and then putting it > back in. > > q1, why does -add throw up the message : not performing --add, re-add > failed, zero superblock... Because some people seem to use "--add" when they mean "--re-add" and that can cause data loss. So to be safe, if want want to discard all the data on a device and add it as a true spare, you now need to --zero-superblock first. Hopefully that isn't too much of a burden. > > q2, I setup md4 as a raid10 far 2, and I may not be understanding raid10 > here; when I zero the superblock to add it as I did with the other raids > which worked ok, for some reason it causes sda4 to drop out and kills > the whole md4 raid. You must be running linux-3.1. It has a bug with exactly this behaviour. It should be fixed in the latest -stable release. Upstream commit 7fcc7c8acf0fba44d19a713207af7e58267c1179 fixes it. > > q3, Is it preferable to have a write intent bitmap, and if so should I > put it in the meta-data as opposed to a file. A write intent bitmap can make writes a little slower but makes resync after a crash much master. You get to choose which you want. It is much more convenient in the internal metadata. Having the bitmap in an external file and reduce the performance cost a bit (if the file is on a separate device). I would only recommend a separate file if you have an asymmetric mirror with one leg (the slow leg) marked write-mostly. You don't really want the bitmap on that device, so put it somewhere else. NeilBrown > > Thanks in advance. > > Jon. > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
