Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:29:33 +0300 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org> To: "Josef Karthauser" <joe@freebsd.org>, stable@freebsd.org, fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gmirror disks vs partitions Message-ID: <cb5206420701170329u6f4b8259p85f423d39033ad8f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070117103935.GC4018@genius.tao.org.uk> References: <20070117103935.GC4018@genius.tao.org.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420701170329u6f4b8259p85f423d39033ad8f>