On Mar 1, 2014, at 5:44 PM, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote:
> > > Am 02.03.2014 01:36, schrieb Chris Murphy: >> On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: >> >>> Am 02.03.2014 00:42, schrieb Chris Murphy: >>>> >>>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Miller <mat...@fedoraproject.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:29:30PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >>>>>>> - There needs to be a mandate to remove features from custom >>>>>>> partitioning >>>>>>> that quite frankly don't make sense like rootfs on raid4, raid5 or >>>>>>> raid6. OK maybe raid5. But not raid 4 or raid 6. There are other >>>>>> >>>>>> Okay, I'll bite. Why not rootfs on raid6? >>>>> >>>>> It's pathological. There are too many simpler, faster, more resilient >>>>> options considering rootfs at most isn't bigger than the average SSD: Two >>>>> or three SSDs + n-way mirroring. RAID 10. Or RAID 1 + linear + XFS for >>>>> deterministic workloads. >>>> >>>> Those three examples are simpler, more resilient, easier to configure and >>>> maintain, perform better, with faster rebuild times than RAID 6 which also >>>> has a high read-modify-write penalty. I left that part out. >>> >>> yes, but RAID6 allows a disk-fault *while* rebuild the RAID after the first >>> one >>> RADID 10 *may* do the same if the *right* second disk fails >> >> If you need two disk failure tolerance use n-way mirroring with three disks, >> anaconda supports this > > and if you need failure tolerance *and* performance? You need better rootfs performance than what's provided by SSD? > yes, then use commercial SAN storages… OK, but it sounds expensive and demeaning. Yet, I'll grant that it's more sane than rootfs on software RAID 6. Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
