Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:07:19 -0400 From: Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org> To: FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: large RAID volume partition strategy Message-ID: <94ECF72B-B0E9-492C-8279-29989FAAE19C@khera.org> In-Reply-To: <fa5men$v5r$1@sea.gmane.org> References: <31BB09D7-B58A-47AC-8DD1-6BB8141170D8@khera.org> <fa5b4v$8e5$1@sea.gmane.org> <EED39309-A95F-4A2D-8E35-C1650A55E482@khera.org> <fa5men$v5r$1@sea.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 17, 2007, at 10:44 PM, Ivan Voras wrote: > > fdisk and bsdlabels both have a limit: because of the way they > store the > data about the disk space they span, they can't store values that > reference space > 2 TB. In particular, every partition must start > at an > offset <= 2 TB, and cannot be larger than 2 TB. Thanks. This is good advice (along with your other note about doing it in the RAID volume manager). Nearly everyone else decided to jump on the raid level instead and spew forth the "RAID10 is better for database" party line. Well to you folks: once you have 1Gb cache and a lot of disks, there is not much difference between RAID10 and RAID5 or RAID6 in my testing. I ended up making 6 RAID volumes across all the disks to maximize spindle counts and strip the data at 16kB. This seems to work well, and I can assign the other partition as I need later on.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?94ECF72B-B0E9-492C-8279-29989FAAE19C>