similar to: questions regarding file-system optimization for sortware-RAID array

Andreas, why is it relevant only in case of RAID5 or RAID6? regards, Martin On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca> wrote: > Note that stride and stripe width only make sense for RAI-5/6 arrays. > For RAID-1 it doesn't really matter. > > Cheers, Andreas > >> On Mar 6, 2014, at 13:46, Martin T <m4rtntns@gmail.com> wrote: >>

Note that stride and stripe width only make sense for RAI-5/6 arrays. For RAID-1 it doesn't really matter. Cheers, Andreas > On Mar 6, 2014, at 13:46, Martin T <m4rtntns@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I created a RAID1 array of two physical HDD's with chunk size of 64KiB under Debian "wheezy" using mdadm. As a next step, I would like to create an ext3(or

The stripe and stride options do two things: - shift block and inode bitmaps in each group to be on different disks - align the block allocation to the stripe and stride boundaries to avoid read-modify-write in RAID The first one is irrelevant if the flex_bg option is used, since it already packs the bitmaps together and achieves the same effect. The second is meaningless for RAID-1 since

All, I have a question about calculating the value for the -E stride option to mke2fs. The mke2fs man page says stride=stripe-size Configure the filesystem for a RAID array with stripe-size filesystem blocks per stripe. So stride = size of stripe/blocksize. The size of a stripe is the RAID chunk size * the number of drives in the RAID. My question: are parity disks

So I have been playing with a RAID 10 f2 ( 2 disks far layout) setup...thanks for all of the advice..Now I am playing with the format and want to make sure I have it setup the best that I can, my raid was built using the raid 10 option with 2 disks with the layout=far, chunk size 512....now I read all of the docs I could find about format and stride and stripe size and this is what i came up

I'm setting up a new fileserver. It has two RAID controllers, a PERC 3/DI providing mirrored system disks and a PERC 3/DC providing a 1TB RAID5 volume consisting of eight 144GB U160 drives. This will serve NFS, Samba and sftp clients for about 200 users. The logical drive was created with the following settings: RAID = 5 stripe size = 32kb write policy = wrback read policy =

Hi, Is mke2fs' stride option relevant for a multi-striped LVM volume? Cheers, Stephen

Hello, I understand the need for a proper stride setting when formatting a filesystem on a RAID device. However, is there any problem in using a stride setting when formatting a filesystem on a regular non-RAID, non-SSD, just plain-vanilla-single-disk block device? I'm sure there isn't any benefit to it, but I'm curious if there is any harm. The reason I ask is I'm looking at

Hi, I am trying to educate myself on prefetching/readahead algorithm for Lustre''s read. For a starter I only have two simple questions. 1 - Does Lustre detect linear or random I/O pattern or it always triggers readahead? 2 - If readahead is triggered, how many pages are read in addition to what is necessary? Thanks, Arifa.

On a CentOS 6 64bit system, I added a couple prototype SAS SSDs on a HP P411 raid controller (I believe this is a rebranded LSI megaraid with HP firmware) and am trying to format them for best random IO performance with something like postgresql. so, I used the raid command tool to build a raid0 with 2 SAS SSDs # hpacucli ctrl slot=1 logicaldrive 3 show detail Smart Array P410 in Slot 1

Hi, I have a doubt if I use the mke2fs option the right way. I formatted two different disks, one with $ mke2fs -b 4096 -E stride=16 -m 1 -T news /dev/sdd and the other with $ mke2fs -b 4096 -E stride=16 -m 1 -T largefile4 /dev/sde sdd is supposed to get files between 8k and 16k. sde will handle files with a fixed size of 32Mb. Then I tried this : $ dd if=/dev/zero of=/mount-sdx/file bs=4k

Hi, I modified my kickstart to do some custom partioning and formating in a pre-install script. I am trying to align the partitions on the RAID stripe (and format with a correct stride). But, sfdisk complains that it does not start/end on a cylinder boundary (used -L option to limit complaining). Since the cylinder size is not a multiple of the stripe size, I cannot align on both. I tried to

We are having problems remounting an ext3 filesystem using an external journal device. The filesystem in question was working fine until the server was rebooted. This is what we see on dmesg when trying to mount: EXT3: failed to claim external journal device. The external journal lives on a LVM2 logical volume and it seems to be accessible ( we can dumpe2fs and see filesystem information).

Hiya, is there any recommendation out there to setup a btrfs FS on top of hardware or software raid5 or raid6 wrt stripe/stride alignment? From mkfs.btrfs, it doesn''t look like there''s much that can be adjusted that would help, and what I''m asking might not even make sense for btrfs but I thought I''d just ask. Thanks, Stephane -- To unsubscribe from this

I've been playing with the -g switch to mke2fs, which controls the blocks per group. This switch isn't documented. I've been using it to balance metadata traffic on RAID 0. This seems to work fine in ext2. Will I have any problems with ext3 where the blocks per group is not a power of 2? -jwb

Hi, I have gone thought he painful operation of registering just to edit one page then I found out i have to also get on this mailing list to get permission... Why can't the wiki page display that I have no permission to edit? and also why can't edits be sent to a moderation queue for approval? Anyways this is my request to edit http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Disk_Optimization page as it

In 2.4 there used to be a megaide driver for certain ata raid controllers. In 2.6 I can't access more than my /dev/hda , I can see my other 4, I can create filesystems on them, but I can't mount them Anyone knows how to use these on a 2.6 kernel (Centos 4.2) greetings Kris 00:02.0 RAID bus controller: Silicon Image, Inc. SiI 0649 Ultra ATA/100 PCI to ATA Host Controller (rev 02)

Hello list, I have troubles with the daily backup of a modest filesystem which tends to take more that 10 hours. I have ext4 all over the place on ~200 servers and never ran into such a problem. The filesystem capacity is 300 GB (19,6M inodes) with 196 GB (9,3M inodes) used. It's mounted 'defaults,noatime'. It sits on a hardware RAID array thru plain LVM slices. The RAID array is

Suse Linux Enterprise Server 9 SP3 I've tried to create a large 5TB file system using both reiserfs and ext3 and both have failed. I end up with only a 1.5TB file system. Does anyone know why this doesn't work, what to do to fix it? Others have suggested that only XFS or JFS will work. Is this so? Thanks, -Mark

I can't seem to get the read and write performance better than approximately 40MB/s on an ext2 file system. IMO, this is horrible performance for a 6-drive, hardware RAID 5 array. Please have a look at what I'm doing and let me know if anybody has any suggestions on how to improve the performance... System specs: ----------------- 2 x 2.8GHz Xeons 6GB RAM 1 3ware 9500S-12 2 x 6-drive,