Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 01:58:36 +0300 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org> To: "Scott Long" <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: stable@freebsd.org, fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gmirror disks vs partitions Message-ID: <cb5206420701171458w766587c0ib965112338632e0@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <45AEA0B5.8060903@samsco.org> References: <20070117103935.GC4018@genius.tao.org.uk> <cb5206420701170329u6f4b8259p85f423d39033ad8f@mail.gmail.com> <45AEA0B5.8060903@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/18/07, Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> wrote: > Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > > On 1/17/07, Josef Karthauser <joe@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> A poll for opinions if I may? > >> > >> I've got a few gmirrors running on various machines, all of which > >> pair up two drives at the physical level (i.e. mirror /dev/ad0s1 > >> with /dev/ad1s1). Of course there are other ways of doing it to, > >> like mirroring at the partition level, ie pairing /dev/ad0s1a with > >> /dev/ad1s1a, /dev/ad0s1e with /dev/ad0s1e, etc. > >> > >> Apart from potentially avoiding a whole disk from being copied > >> during a resync after a crash, are there any other advantages to > >> using partition level mirroring instead of drive level mirroring? > > > > I can imagine people using partition-level raid to > > implement a popular configuration: > > > > You divide a couple of identical drives proportionally > > in two partitions each, place a couple of the first > > partitions into gmirror and a couple of the second > > ones into gstripe. This way you get both reliable and > > fast storage with just two drives. Some strings are > > attached. > > The head movement that this causes makes it a poor performer. It is > an option, but not a terribly popular one. I hear many desktops and laptops nowadays (used to?) come preconfigured this way.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420701171458w766587c0ib965112338632e0>