Re: A few questions before assembling Linux 7.5TB RAID 5 array
- From: Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:30:40 +0100
Conor <conor.turton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I figured as much, but was hoping that someone else would say "Hey, in
my experience ___KB chunks are best for your situation,
Sadly, no as usage and typical filesize play a large part in it and no
two arrays are going to be used the same.
If the usage and file sizes are known that knowledge might be useful for
tuning performance when choosing chunk size. However, if some kind of
general purpose storage, which will host different filesizes, is built
wouldn't it still be possible to choose a good chunk size? In such a case
when it wouldn't be possible to optimize for the files stored on raid I
think that I instead would try to optimize the chunk size so it for sure
fits into the cache of each HD in the raid array.
If a chunk fits into the cache it will quickly be written to the fast
cache, then the next chunk will be written to the cache of the next drive
in the array and so on. Assuming we have enough drives and have them
configured as RAID5 or RAID0 we might be lucky and allways write to a
fast and ready cache only waiting to be filled. With RAID3 there will
always be writes to one single parity drive which will become a
bottleneck, this is why RAID3 almost never is used today.
The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is:
hc8(at)uthyres.com Examples of addresses which go to spammers:
- Prev by Date: Re: new pc: motherbord and cpu advice
- Next by Date: Re: Which CPU need less power (=produces less heat): AMD Athlon Mobile, AMD x64 or Intel "Core Duo" ?
- Previous by thread: new pc: motherbord and cpu advice
- Next by thread: Re: Which CPU need less power (=produces less heat): AMD Athlon Mobile, AMD x64 or Intel "Core Duo" ?