Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 02:26:04 +0400 From: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> To: Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org> Cc: FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: large RAID volume partition strategy Message-ID: <20575075@bsam.ru> In-Reply-To: <31BB09D7-B58A-47AC-8DD1-6BB8141170D8@khera.org> (Vivek Khera's message of "Fri\, 17 Aug 2007 17\:42\:55 -0400") References: <31BB09D7-B58A-47AC-8DD1-6BB8141170D8@khera.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:42:55 -0400 Vivek Khera wrote: > I have a shiny new big RAID array. 16x500GB SATA 300+NCQ drives > connected to the host via 4Gb fibre channel. This gives me 6.5Tb of > raw disk. > I've come up with three possibilities on organizing this disk. My > needs are really for a single 1Tb file system on which I will run > postgres. However, in the future I'm not sure what I'll really need. > I don't plan to ever connect any other servers to this RAID unit. > The three choices I've come with so far are: > 1) Make one RAID volume of 6.5Tb (in a RAID6 + hot spare > configuration), and make one FreeBSD file system on the whole > partition. > 2) Make one RAID volume of 6.5Tb (in a RAID6 + hot spare > configuration), and make 6 FreeBSD partitions with one file system > each. > 3) Make 6 RAID volumes and expose them to FreeBSD as multiple drives, > then make one partition + file system on each "disk". Each RAID > volume would span across all 16 drives, and I could make the volumes > of differing RAID levels, if needed, but I'd probably stick with RAID6 > +spare. > I'm not keen on option 1 because of the potentially long fsck times > after a crash. > What advantage/disadvantage would I have between 2 and 3? The only > thing I can come up with is that the disk scheduling algorithm in > FreeBSD might not be optimal if the drives really are not truly > independent as they are really backed by the same 16 drives, so > option 2 might be better. However, with option 3, if I do ever end > up connecting another host to the array, I can assign some of the > volumes to the other host(s). > My goal is speed, speed, speed. Seems that RAID[56] may be too sloooow. I'd suggest RAID10. I have 6 SATA-II 300MB/s disks at 3WARE adapter. My (very!) simple tests gave about 170MB/s for dd. BTW, I tested (OK, very fast) RAID5, RAID6, gmirror+gstripe and noone get close to RAID10. (Well, as expected, I suppose). > I'm running FreeBSD 6.2/amd64 and > using an LSI fibre card. If you have time you may do your own tests... And in case RAID0 you shouldn't have problems with long fsck. Leave a couple of your disks for hot-swapping and you'll get 7Tb. ;-) > Thanks for any opinions and recommendations. WBR -- bsam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20575075>