similar to: BIOS RAID0 and differences between disks

On 11/04/2020 10:21 PM, John Pierce wrote: > is it RAID 0 (striped) or raid1 (mirrored) ?? > > if you wrote on half of a raid0 stripe set, you basically trashed it. > blocks are striped across both drives, so like 16k on the first disk, then > 16k on the 2nd then 16k back on the first, repeat (replace 16k with > whatever your raid stripe size is). > > if its a raid 1

> On Nov 4, 2020, at 9:21 PM, John Pierce <jhn.pierce at gmail.com> wrote: > > is it RAID 0 (striped) or raid1 (mirrored) ?? > > if you wrote on half of a raid0 stripe set, you basically trashed it. > blocks are striped across both drives, so like 16k on the first disk, then > 16k on the 2nd then 16k back on the first, repeat (replace 16k with > whatever your raid

is it RAID 0 (striped) or raid1 (mirrored) ?? if you wrote on half of a raid0 stripe set, you basically trashed it. blocks are striped across both drives, so like 16k on the first disk, then 16k on the 2nd then 16k back on the first, repeat (replace 16k with whatever your raid stripe size is). if its a raid 1 mirror, then either disk by itself has the complete file system on it, so you should be

Hi, I do have a disk array that is providing striped LUNs to my Solaris box. Hence I''d like to simply concat those LUNs without adding another layer of striping. Is this possibile with ZFS? As far as I understood, if I use zpool create myPool lun-1 lun-2 ... lun-n I will get a RAID0 striping where each data block is split across all "n" LUNs. If that''s

How can I verify the read speed of a btrfs raid0 pair in archlinux.? I assume raid0 means striped activity in a paralleled mode at lease similar to raid0 in mdadm. How can I measure the btrfs read speed since it is copy-on-write which is not the norm in mdadm raid0.? Perhaps I cannot use the same approach in btrfs to determine the performance. Secondly, I see a methodology for raid10 using

I'm trying to work out the kinks of a proprietary, old, and clunky application that runs on CentOS. One of its main problems is that it writes image sequences extremely non-linearly and in several passes, using many CPUs, so the sequences get very fragmented. The obvious solution to this seems to be to use SSDs for its output, and some scripts that will pick up and copy our the sequences

hi guys, gals do you know if conversion from lvm's raid10 to raid0 is possible? I'm fiddling with --splitmirrors but it gets me nowhere. On "takeover" subject man pages says: "..between striped/raid0 and raid10."" but no details, nowhere I could find documentation, nor a howto. many thanks, L.

The Wiki does not make it clear as to why adding a secondary device defaults to RAID1 metadata and RAID0 data. I bought two SSDs with the intention of doing a BTRFS RAID0 for my root. What is the difference between forcing RAID0 on metadata and data as opposed to the default behavior? Can anyone clarify that? Thank you for your time, Mario -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer at ngtech.co.il> wrote: > I am unsure I understand what you wrote. > "XFS will create multiple AG's across all of those > devices," > Are you comparing md linear/concat to md raid0? and that the upper level XFS > will run on top them? Yes to the first question, I'm not understanding the second

Hi folks: At work, I have an R510, and R610 and an R710 - all with the H700 PERC controller. Based on experiments, it seems like there is no way to bypass the PERC controller - it seems like one can only access the individual disks if they are set up in RAID0 each. This brings me to ask some questions: a. Is it fine (in terms of an intelligent controller coming in the way of ZFS) to have the

All, For our project, we bought 8 new Supermicro servers. Each server is a quad-core Intel cpu with 2U chassis supporting 8 x 7200 RPM Sata drives. To start out, we only populated 2 x 2TB enterprise drives in each server and added all 8 peers with their total of 16 drives as bricks to our gluster pool as distributed replicated (2). The replica worked as follows: 1.1 -> 2.1 1.2

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I''ve been unable to find anything definitive about what happens if I use RAID0 to join an SSD and HDD together with respect to performance (latency, throughput). The future is obvious (hot data tracking, using most appropriate device for the data, data migration). In my specific case I have a 250GB SSD and a 500GB HDD, and about 250GB of

If there is no free space, the free space allocator will try to get space from the block group with the degenerated profile. For example, if there is no free space in the RAID1 block groups, the allocator will try to allocate space from the DUP block groups. And besides that, the space reservation has the similar behaviour: if there is no enough space in the space cache to reserve, it will reserve

Hey! I have big problem with my centos 5.1. I have two hard discs 500gig and 40gig and those are in RAID0. I would like to remowe the small 40gig hd and put new 500gig hd and i don't wan't raid0 anymore. How can i copy data from 40gig hd to 500gig hd and switch 40gig hd to new 500gig hd? Another question: Can i just copy all my files to windows laptop and if i wan't

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

This might be a stupid question, but here goes... Would adding, say, 4 4 or 8gb usb keys as a zil make enough of a difference for writes on an iscsi shared vol? I am finding reads are not too bad (40is mb/s over gige on 2 500gb drives stripped) but writes top out at about 10 and drop a lot lower... If I where to add a couple usb keys for zil, would it make a difference? Thanks. Sent from a

On Fri, September 8, 2017 12:56 pm, hw wrote: > Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> >> On Fri, September 8, 2017 9:48 am, hw wrote: >>> m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >>>> hw wrote: >>>>> Mark Haney wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>>>> BTRFS isn't going to impact I/O any more significantly than, say, >>>>>> XFS.

With the Dell OpenManage question on my mind (and having seen it answered very well), I was reminded of an interesting and a little surprising thing I saw yesterday. I upgraded a PowerEdge 2850 from CentOS4 to Fedora Core 5 (keeping everything updated for GNUradio to run on CentOS 4 became more of a job that it should have) for our pulsar data processing machine (it has a GNUradio Universal

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Michael Schumacher <michael.schumacher at pamas.de> wrote: > Btw., are you sure you want to use XFS for a mail server? I made some > tests about a year ago and found that EXT4 is by the factor 10 faster > compared to XFS. The tests I performed were using the "maildir" style > postfix installation that results in many thousands files in

Hello, I have a little problem which I can't solve with Samba used under Debian Squeeze. (version of Samba : 3.5.6) I made a transfer speed between Samba server and a samba mount on the same PC copy to RAM and the same file directly to RAM. 1. HDD to RAM => 105-115Mo/s 2. Shared the same HDD directory with samba and mount to "/media" locally with (mount -t smbfs) : Samba to RAM