Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:34:09 -0400 as
excerpted:
>> 4-device raid6, btrfs and mdraid both allow that, good point. But of
>> course mdraid6 doesn't have the data integrity, only rebuild-parity.
>>
> Huh, I didn't know that mdraid allowed that, I know dm-raid through LVM
On 2015-08-17 19:06, Duncan wrote:
Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:38:13 -0400 as
excerpted:
I've also found that BTRFS raid5/6 on top of MD RAID0 mitigates (to a
certain extent that is) the performance penalty of doing raid5/6 if you
aren't on ridiculously fast storage, proba
Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:38:13 -0400 as
excerpted:
> I've also found that BTRFS raid5/6 on top of MD RAID0 mitigates (to a
> certain extent that is) the performance penalty of doing raid5/6 if you
> aren't on ridiculously fast storage, probably not something that should
>
On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 16:44 -0300, Eduardo Bach wrote:
> Based on previous testing with a smaller number of disk I'm
> suspecting
> that the 32 disks are not all being used. With 12 discs I got more
> speed with btrfs thanmdadm+xfs. With, btrfs, 12 disks and large files
> we got the entire theoreti
The bether xfs performance we got was using 32 disks and 128KB mdadm chunk size.
Could the be the problem we are seen? if each disk get 4KB, 64KB will
be optimal for just 16 disks when usint raid0 with btrfs?
2015-08-14 15:31 GMT-03:00 Chris Murphy :
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Eduardo Bach
Hi Calvin.
thanks a lot for the quick answer and sorry for my delayed to reply.
We got some security issues at some machines. I will answer almost al
the replies below.
Yes raid0 is huge risk. This setup is just for performance demos and
other very specific occasions.
I understand the the need of
On 2015-08-15 02:30, Duncan wrote:
Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:58:30 -0400 as
excerpted:
FWIW, running BTRFS on top of MDRAID actually works very well,
especially for BTRFS raid1 on top of MD-RAID0 (I get an almost 50%
performance increase for this usage over BTRFS raid10,
Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:58:30 -0400 as
excerpted:
> FWIW, running BTRFS on top of MDRAID actually works very well,
> especially for BTRFS raid1 on top of MD-RAID0 (I get an almost 50%
> performance increase for this usage over BTRFS raid10, although most of
> this is prob
On 2015-08-14 15:54, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
wrote:
On 2015-08-14 14:31, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Eduardo Bach wrote:
With btrfs the result approaches 3.5GB/s. When using mdadm+xfs the
result reaches 6gb/s, which
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
wrote:
> On 2015-08-14 14:31, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Eduardo Bach wrote:
>>
>>> With btrfs the result approaches 3.5GB/s. When using mdadm+xfs the
>>> result reaches 6gb/s, which is the expected value when co
On 2015-08-14 14:31, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Eduardo Bach wrote:
With btrfs the result approaches 3.5GB/s. When using mdadm+xfs the
result reaches 6gb/s, which is the expected value when compared with
parallel dd made on discs.
mdadm with what chunk (strip) size?
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Eduardo Bach wrote:
> With btrfs the result approaches 3.5GB/s. When using mdadm+xfs the
> result reaches 6gb/s, which is the expected value when compared with
> parallel dd made on discs.
mdadm with what chunk (strip) size? The default for mdadm is 512KiB.
On Bt
On Fri, 2015-08-14 at 12:30 -0400, Calvin Walton wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-08-14 at 12:16 -0300, Eduardo Bach wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This is my first email to this list, so please excuse any gaffe.
> >
> > I am in the evaluation early stages of a new storage, an SGI MIS,
> > currently with two HB
On Fri, 2015-08-14 at 12:16 -0300, Eduardo Bach wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is my first email to this list, so please excuse any gaffe.
>
> I am in the evaluation early stages of a new storage, an SGI MIS,
> currently with two HBAs LSI and 32 disks.
> The hba controllers are LSI 9207-8i and the dis
14 matches
Mail list logo
