search for: 40tb

On 4/13/11, Rudi Ahlers <Rudi at softdux.com> wrote: >> to expand the array :) > > I haven't had problems doing it this way yet. I finally figured out my mistake creating the raid devices and got a working RAID 0 on two RAID 1 arrays. But I wasn't able to add another RAID 1 component to the array with the error mdadm: add new device failed for /dev/md/mdr1_3 as 2:

Hello All I have a brand spanking new 40TB Hardware Raid6 array to play around with. I am looking for recommendations for which filesystem to use. I am trying not to break this up into multiple file systems as we are going to use it for backups. Other factors is performance and reliability. CentOS 5.6 array is /dev/sdb So here is what...

...to 32bit windows 2003 and windows-xp by googling. The closest I could get to was that cifs filesystem size correlates to ntfs filesystem size and therefore there would be a 64TB limit. Are there additional limits within the software stack that I should be aware of? We are considering exporting a 40TB xfs filesystem striped over 20 2TB luns on a fibre channel SAN via LVM2 on SLES9-SP3, and will be falling back to 16TB filesystems if necessary. Anything below that would be cumbersome because of the amount of mountpoints. Can the 32bit windows clients keep up with that size as long as the files o...

Hello, I am a newbie to Lustre File system. In out data centre we have 2 Lustre file systems (small 40TB an larger 200 TB). We using our Lustre File system to perform I/O for Life sciences and bioinformatics applications. The vendor has decided to mount home directories on smaller lustre file system (40TB) and also installed bioinformatics applications on this smaller Lustre FS. The larger Lustre FS...

Hi, I am trying to get the most out of my 40TB xfs file system and I have noticed that the inode64 mount option gives me a roughly 30% performance increase (besides the other useful things). The problem is that I have to export the filesystem via NFS and I cannot seem to get this working with the current version of nfs-utils (1.2.3). The expor...

I'm running a server with Centos 3 that I have set up a smbfs share to a Buffalo LinkStation. The LS has 4 drives configured with RAID 5. Each disk has 1 TB capacity, so the resulting drive is approximately 2.7 TB. When doing a df, the result shows 2 TB, and no used blocks. Is there some setting I can change so that Centos sees and uses all 2.7 TB or does Centos 3 not support this? Steve

...Interesting, we have a similar workload: hundreds of millions of images, small files, and especially on weekends with high traffic the load+iowait is really heavy. Or if a hdd fails, or during a raid check. our hardware: 10x 10TB hdds -> 5x raid1, each raid1 is a brick, replicate 3 setup. About 40TB of data. Well, the bricks are bigger than recommended... Sooner or later we will have to migrate that stuff, and use nvme for that, either 3.5TB or bigger ones. Those should be faster... *fingerscrossed* regards, Hubert

...07, at 6:44 AM, Yaniv Aknin wrote: > Hello, > > I''d like to plan a storage solution for a system currently in > production. > > The system''s storage is based on code which writes many files to > the file system, with overall storage needs currently around 40TB > and expected to reach hundreds of TBs. The average file size of the > system is ~100K, which translates to ~500 million files today, and > billions of files in the future. This storage is accessed over NFS > by a rack of 40 Linux blades, and is mostly read-only (99% of the &...

...(1MB-100MB). For the most part, these files are write once, read several times. Our initial store is 80TB, but we expect to go to roughly 320TB fairly quickly. After that, we expect to be adding another 80TB every few months. We are using some COTS servers which we add in pairs; each server has 40TB of usable storage. We intend to keep two copies of each file. We currently run 4TB bricks In our somewhat limited test environment, GlusterFS seemed to work well. And, our initial introduction of GlusterFS into our production environment went well. We had our initial 2 server (80TB) cluster ab...

As mentioned last night, we''ve been reviewing a proposal for hot spare support in ZFS. Below you can find a current draft of the proposed interfaces. This has not yet been submitted for ARC review, but comments are welcome. Note that this does not include any enhanced FMA diagnosis to determine when a device is "faulted". This will come in a follow-on project, of which some

Excerpts from Strahil Nikolov's message of 2023-03-21 00:27:58 +0000: > Generally,the recommended approach is to have? 4TB disks and no more > than 10-12 per HW RAID. what kind of raid configuration and brick size do you recommend here? > Of course , it's not always possible but a > resync of a failed 14 TB drive will take eons. right, that is my concern too. but with raid

...Interesting, we have a similar workload: hundreds of millions of images, small files, and especially on weekends with high traffic the load+iowait is really heavy. Or if a hdd fails, or during a raid check. our hardware: 10x 10TB hdds -> 5x raid1, each raid1 is a brick, replicate 3 setup. About 40TB of data. Well, the bricks are bigger than recommended... Sooner or later we will have to migrate that stuff, and use nvme for that, either 3.5TB or bigger ones. Those should be faster... *fingerscrossed* regards, Hubert ________ Community Meeting Calendar: Schedule - Every 2nd and 4th Tuesda...

We are looking into the possibility of adding a dedicated ZIL and/or L2ARC devices to our pool. We are looking into getting 4 ? 32GB Intel X25-E SSD drives. Would this be a good solution to slow write speeds? We are currently sharing out different slices of the pool to windows servers using comstar and fibrechannel. We are currently getting around 300MB/sec performance with 70-100% disk busy.

Hello, Has anyone out there been able to qualify the Proliant DL360 G7 for your Solaris/OI/Nexenta environments? Any pros/cons/gotchas (vs. previous generation HP servers) would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! -Anh