10 May 2011 00:40
Re: Using stride on non-RAID
Mag Gam <magawake <at> gmail.com>
2011-05-09 22:40:20 GMT
2011-05-09 22:40:20 GMT
Are stride settings needed for Hardware RAID devices? For example, if I do a RAID 5 on a HP-P800 I get a 9.1TB filesystem. Should I worry about stride in that case? On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:02 PM, David Shaw <dshaw <at> jabberwocky.com> wrote: > On Mar 15, 2011, at 6:53 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> On 3/15/11 5:42 PM, David Shaw wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I understand the need for a proper stride setting when formatting a >>> filesystem on a RAID device. However, is there any problem in using >>> a stride setting when formatting a filesystem on a regular non-RAID, >>> non-SSD, just plain-vanilla-single-disk block device? I'm sure there >>> isn't any benefit to it, but I'm curious if there is any harm. >>> >>> The reason I ask is I'm looking at some code here that can be used on >>> either RAID or non-RAID devices. The stride setting it has is >>> correct for the particular RAID setup it is intended for, but it also >>> uses those settings when formatting a non-RAID device. >>> >>> David >> >> just FWIW, recent kernels & e2fsprogs will just automatically pick >> stride based on storage geometry - for md/lvm at least, and for >> scsi devices that export this geometry as well. >> >> ext4 has a little stripe-awareness in its allocator; otherwise, stride >> just staggers bitmap starts so they don't all end up on the same spindle; [1](Continue reading)
C.
RSS Feed