Anup Shukla wrote:
Format and run the dd command again.
The speed is 130MB/s now.
It can vary a quite a bit depending on where you hit the disk. Remember,
what you are testing is just how fast dd can read from /dev/zero and
write to the file in a filesystem with 1k blocks. How that will map t
Anup Shukla wrote:
I created 500G slices. Partitioned and mounted them
Then did a simple
"time dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/data1 bs=1k count=120"
This gave me a speed of over 150MB/s
Then i deleted entire RAID thing.. recreate 2 LUNs
30G, and whatever is left.
Create a PV on the bigger drive w
Morten Torstensen wrote:
Anup Shukla wrote:
Still, given the suggestion, i will surely try to reduce the number of
slices.
I would make one system LUN at say 20GB and one data LUN with the rest
of the RADI5 space.
On the system LUN I would make a /boot filesystem and a LVM partition
with a
Anup Shukla wrote:
Still, given the suggestion, i will surely try to reduce the number of
slices.
I would make one system LUN at say 20GB and one data LUN with the rest
of the RADI5 space.
On the system LUN I would make a /boot filesystem and a LVM partition
with at least a / filesystem and
Peter Kjellstrom wrote:
Reconsider the "multiple 500G" part. Slicing a raid-set up typically has bad
performance effects (how bad depends on the controller). This results from
that linux now considers several parts of your one raidset as devices to be
scheduled independently.
Ok, looks li
On Wednesday 24 October 2007, Anup Shukla wrote:
...
> Dell PERC 5/i "does" have an option to create multiple LUNs.
> So, i have been quite moronic in not trying to apply logic initially.
> As for now, i am creating a small "system" disk,
> and multiple 500G "data" disks.
Reconsider the "multiple
So, i have been quite moronic in not trying to apply logic initially.
Please leave that term for those who really deserve it. As for not
trying perhaps the lazy label is more suitable :-P
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.cento
Anup Shukla wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry if this has been answered many times.
But i have been going through a lot of pages (via google search).
The more i search, the more its confusing me.
I have a server with 6 (750G each) SATA disks with H/W Raid 5.
I plan to allocate the space as follows
swap 8G
Anup Shukla wrote:
>
> Peter Kjellstrom wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 October 2007, Anup Shukla wrote:
> > ...
> >> I think its finally got into my head now. :)
> >>
> >> From what i understand (after your replies and some more googling)
> >> GRUB cannot boot from gpt labeled drives.
> >> So no matter
Shawn Everett wrote:
I will be telling them wait for a power loss, wait for the XFS code to
shut down one of its filesystem for no reason, take a good look at the
neverending stream of bug fixes in the mainline kernel, take a look at
those kernel developers who have openly announced they want not
> I will be telling them wait for a power loss, wait for the XFS code to
> shut down one of its filesystem for no reason, take a good look at the
> neverending stream of bug fixes in the mainline kernel, take a look at
> those kernel developers who have openly announced they want nothing to
> do wi
I know that XFS gets all the press about being a great performing file
system ... but if you want the best stability on CentOS, you should at
least consider ext3 instead.
+1
I have worked very hard to get stable code for xfs in centos-4 and
centos-5, and lots of people use it, but (IMHO) ex
Morten Torstensen wrote:
Anup Shukla wrote:
So finally, i am putting a 300G SATA to act as the "system" drive.
Then use the other 750G's to be the big RAID 5 Volume (XFS)
If you use a hardware RAID adapter, you can make two LUNs from the
disks. So make one big RAID5 array but two logical driv
Johnny Hughes wrote:
James A. Peltier wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
I know that XFS gets all the press about being a great performing file
system ... but if you want the best stability on CentOS, you should at
least consider ext3 instead.
I have worked very hard to get stable code for xfs in cen
Anup Shukla wrote:
So finally, i am putting a 300G SATA to act as the "system" drive.
Then use the other 750G's to be the big RAID 5 Volume (XFS)
If you use a hardware RAID adapter, you can make two LUNs from the
disks. So make one big RAID5 array but two logical drives. I would still
use LVM
James A. Peltier wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> I know that XFS gets all the press about being a great performing file
>> system ... but if you want the best stability on CentOS, you should at
>> least consider ext3 instead.
>>
>> I have worked very hard to get stable code for xfs in centos-4 and
Sorry, the previous mail i sent was not correctly quoted.
Corrections below.
Anup Shukla wrote:
Peter Kjellstrom wrote:
On Tuesday 23 October 2007, Anup Shukla wrote:
...
I think its finally got into my head now. :)
From what i understand (after your replies and some more googling)
GRUB cann
Peter Kjellstrom wrote:
On Tuesday 23 October 2007, Anup Shukla wrote:
...
I think its finally got into my head now. :)
From what i understand (after your replies and some more googling)
GRUB cannot boot from gpt labeled drives.
So no matter how i partition them, it just wont boot.
Correct.
Johnny Hughes wrote:
I know that XFS gets all the press about being a great performing file
system ... but if you want the best stability on CentOS, you should at
least consider ext3 instead.
I have worked very hard to get stable code for xfs in centos-4 and
centos-5, and lots of people use it,
On Tuesday 23 October 2007, Anup Shukla wrote:
...
> I think its finally got into my head now. :)
>
> From what i understand (after your replies and some more googling)
> GRUB cannot boot from gpt labeled drives.
> So no matter how i partition them, it just wont boot.
Correct.
> So finally, i am
Anup Shukla wrote:
> James A. Peltier wrote:
>> James A. Peltier wrote:
>>> Anup Shukla wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry if this has been answered many times.
But i have been going through a lot of pages (via google search).
The more i search, the more its confusing me.
I hav
James A. Peltier wrote:
James A. Peltier wrote:
Anup Shukla wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry if this has been answered many times.
But i have been going through a lot of pages (via google search).
The more i search, the more its confusing me.
I have a server with 6 (750G each) SATA disks with H/W Raid 5.
James A. Peltier wrote:
Anup Shukla wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry if this has been answered many times.
But i have been going through a lot of pages (via google search).
The more i search, the more its confusing me.
I have a server with 6 (750G each) SATA disks with H/W Raid 5.
I plan to allocate the
Anup Shukla wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry if this has been answered many times.
But i have been going through a lot of pages (via google search).
The more i search, the more its confusing me.
I have a server with 6 (750G each) SATA disks with H/W Raid 5.
I plan to allocate the space as follows
swap 8G
Hi All,
Sorry if this has been answered many times.
But i have been going through a lot of pages (via google search).
The more i search, the more its confusing me.
I have a server with 6 (750G each) SATA disks with H/W Raid 5.
I plan to allocate the space as follows
swap 8G
/boot 100M
/ 20G
--
25 matches
Mail list logo
