Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:18:29 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Andrew Pantyukhin <infofarmer@freebsd.org> Cc: stable@freebsd.org, fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gmirror disks vs partitions Message-ID: <45AEA0B5.8060903@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <cb5206420701170329u6f4b8259p85f423d39033ad8f@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070117103935.GC4018@genius.tao.org.uk> <cb5206420701170329u6f4b8259p85f423d39033ad8f@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45AEA0B5.8060903>