Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 03 Aug 1999 11:11:39 +0800
From:      Stephen Hocking-Senior Programmer PGS Tensor Perth <shocking@prth.pgs.com>
To:        hackers@freebsd.org
Cc:        shocking@bandicoot.prth.tensor.pgs.com
Subject:   Adding disks -the pain. Also vinum
Message-ID:  <199908030311.LAA16741@ariadne.tensor.pgs.com>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The people who I work for were about to junk a bunch of 6 year old disks when 
I snaffled them. Among them were 4 DEC DSP5400S (3.8GB each), with a nice 
external case. These disks had been doing duty on a boat carrying out seismic 
surveys, attached to misc. Sun workstations. These are typical of their 
vintage - full height 5 1/4" drives fast narrow SCSI2, and noisy as all 
blazes. I have them hooked up to a NCR810, as one striped FS (it's just for 
experiments, not valuable data). fdisking them was easy, but disklabelling 
them was a royal pain. I ended up editing the /etc/disktab file to add an 
appropriate label and running "disklabel -w -B /dev/rda0c DSP5400S" which 
still gives an error message, but appears to install the label. I only found 
out that it installed the label by accident, wasting a bunch of time in the 
process.

I created a striped volume across the 4 drives with the default stripe size of 
256K. I read the rather interesting discussion within the man pages about the 
optimal stripe size and have a couple of queries. Firstly, the type of traffic 
that this 13.9GB filesystem will see will be mainly sequential reading and 
writing of large files. There will only be a few files (~2-30), each several 
gigs. (I'm fooling around with the seismic software at home, and typcal 
surveys can results in files many gigs in size). Given that FreeBSD breaks 
I/Os down into 64k chunks, would having a 64k stripe size give more 
parallelism? I'm seeing 4.4MB/s if I read from an individual disk, but only 
about 5.6MB/s when reading from the striped volume. Looking at the systat 
display, the 8k fs blocks do seem to be clustered into larger requests, so I'm 
not too worried about the FS block size. What have people observed with trying 
larger FS block sizes?


	Stephen
-- 
  The views expressed above are not those of PGS Tensor.

    "We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce
     the Complete Works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know
     this is not true."            Robert Wilensky, University of California




To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199908030311.LAA16741>