large RAID volume partition strategy
krion at voodoo.bawue.com
Wed Aug 29 12:10:46 PDT 2007
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 10:07:19AM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2007, at 10:44 PM, Ivan Voras wrote:
>> fdisk and bsdlabels both have a limit: because of the way they store the
>> data about the disk space they span, they can't store values that
>> reference space > 2 TB. In particular, every partition must start at an
>> offset <= 2 TB, and cannot be larger than 2 TB.
> Thanks. This is good advice (along with your other note about doing it in
> the RAID volume manager). Nearly everyone else decided to jump on the raid
> level instead and spew forth the "RAID10 is better for database" party
> line. Well to you folks: once you have 1Gb cache and a lot of disks, there
> is not much difference between RAID10 and RAID5 or RAID6 in my testing.
What type I/O did you test, random read/writes, sequential writes ?
The performance of RAID group always depends on what software you
run on your RAID group. If it's database, be prepared for many
random read/writes, hence dd(1) tests would be useless.
> I ended up making 6 RAID volumes across all the disks to maximize spindle
> counts and strip the data at 16kB. This seems to work well, and I can
> assign the other partition as I need later on.
> freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-stable