On 2010-10-19 03:07, Eugene Vilensky wrote:
> Stepping back a bit, with RHEL I usually have a variation of the
> default setup, with a /boot and one giant PV sliced up. Is the
> following correct: lvm metadata defaults on RHEL are 64Kbytes, so PVs
> and resultant filesystems should stay aligned wi
Stepping back a bit, with RHEL I usually have a variation of the
default setup, with a /boot and one giant PV sliced up. Is the
following correct: lvm metadata defaults on RHEL are 64Kbytes, so PVs
and resultant filesystems should stay aligned with any reasonable
stripe size assuming partitions ar
On 14/10/10 02:27, Eugene Vilensky wrote:
> One more question...is there anything to be concerned about regarding
> on disk geometry or does the PERC do the right thing automatically
> when using OEM drives?
>
Nearly all drives have 512byte sectors, so these won't be a problem. WD
have been
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Eugene Vilensky wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Tino Schwarze
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 02:57:56PM +, Jefferson Ogata wrote:
>>> On 2010-10-12 14:52, Tino Schwarze wrote:
>>> > I suppose(!) alignment doesn't matter that much (or at all) fo
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Tino Schwarze
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 02:57:56PM +, Jefferson Ogata wrote:
>> On 2010-10-12 14:52, Tino Schwarze wrote:
>> > I suppose(!) alignment doesn't matter that much (or at all) for RAID10
>> > (which is the right choice for DB loads with only
> We're using PERC 6/i with 4 x 10k 2.5" 146GB drives in RAID10.
>
> I currently do a straight-forward CentOS install onto the logical
> drive,
> creating two partitions, one small one for /boot and the other across
> the rest of the disk which I make an lvm PV and slice it up using lvm.
>
> The
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 02:57:56PM +, Jefferson Ogata wrote:
> On 2010-10-12 14:52, Tino Schwarze wrote:
> > I suppose(!) alignment doesn't matter that much (or at all) for RAID10
> > (which is the right choice for DB loads with only few disks).
> >
> > But that's just my gut feeling.
>
> My
On 2010-10-12 14:52, Tino Schwarze wrote:
> I suppose(!) alignment doesn't matter that much (or at all) for RAID10
> (which is the right choice for DB loads with only few disks).
>
> But that's just my gut feeling.
My gut thinks your gut is wrong about that. :^) Why would RAID10 be
exempt? The PE
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 03:37:48PM +0100, Robin Bowes wrote:
> On 12/10/10 09:18, Tino Schwarze wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 09:33:35PM -0500, Eugene Vilensky wrote:
> >
> >> What partition offset should one use when trying to align Windows
> >> 2003, 2008R2, or RHEL 5 partitions to PERC6i c
On 2010-10-12 14:37, Robin Bowes wrote:
> Hmm, this is potentially interesting.
>
> We're using PERC 6/i with 4 x 10k 2.5" 146GB drives in RAID10.
>
> I currently do a straight-forward CentOS install onto the logical drive,
> creating two partitions, one small one for /boot and the other across
>
On 12/10/10 09:18, Tino Schwarze wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 09:33:35PM -0500, Eugene Vilensky wrote:
>
>> What partition offset should one use when trying to align Windows
>> 2003, 2008R2, or RHEL 5 partitions to PERC6i characteristics for best
>> performance?
>
> Any multiple of your RAID
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 09:33:35PM -0500, Eugene Vilensky wrote:
> What partition offset should one use when trying to align Windows
> 2003, 2008R2, or RHEL 5 partitions to PERC6i characteristics for best
> performance?
Any multiple of your RAID volume's stripe size. What is your RAID
configurati
Hi,
What partition offset should one use when trying to align Windows
2003, 2008R2, or RHEL 5 partitions to PERC6i characteristics for best
performance?
Thanks,
Eugene
___
Linux-PowerEdge mailing list
Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com
https://lists.us.dell.com/
13 matches
Mail list logo
