From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 9 20:20:19 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1872516A4CE for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 20:20:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4E0D43D31 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 20:20:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8450612A73B; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:20:12 -0400 (AST) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 38525-08; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 20:20:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-224-186-245.eastlink.ca [24.224.186.245]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75251291F2; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:20:11 -0400 (AST) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 425BF3A464; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:20:13 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 415303A3AB; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:20:13 -0400 (AST) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:20:13 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: "Mark A. Garcia" In-Reply-To: <420A5858.6020602@hamletinc.com> Message-ID: <20050209161917.Q94338@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20050208231208.B94338@ganymede.hub.org> <20050208234602.M94338@ganymede.hub.org> <420A5858.6020602@hamletinc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org cc: Olivier Nicole cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: vinum in 4.x poor performer? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:20:19 -0000 On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Mark A. Garcia wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >> >> Self-followup .. the server config is as follows ... did I do maybe >> mis-configure the array? >> >> # Vinum configuration of neptune.hub.org, saved at Wed Feb 9 00:13:52 2005 >> drive d0 device /dev/da1s1a >> drive d1 device /dev/da2s1a >> drive d2 device /dev/da3s1a >> drive d3 device /dev/da4s1a >> volume vm >> plex name vm.p0 org raid5 1024s vol vm sd name vm.p0.s0 drive d0 plex vm.p0 >> len 142314496s driveoffset 265s plexoffset 0s >> sd name vm.p0.s1 drive d1 plex vm.p0 len 142314496s driveoffset 265s >> plexoffset 1024s >> sd name vm.p0.s2 drive d2 plex vm.p0 len 142314496s driveoffset 265s >> plexoffset 2048s >> sd name vm.p0.s3 drive d3 plex vm.p0 len 142314496s driveoffset 265s >> plexoffset 3072s >> >> bassed on an initial config file that looks like: >> >> neptune# cat /root/raid5 >> drive d0 device /dev/da1s1a >> drive d1 device /dev/da2s1a >> drive d2 device /dev/da3s1a >> drive d3 device /dev/da4s1a >> volume vm >> plex org raid5 512k >> sd length 0 drive d0 >> sd length 0 drive d1 >> sd length 0 drive d2 >> sd length 0 drive d3 >> > It's worth pointing out that your performance on the raid-5 can change for > the better if you avoid having the stripe size be a power of 2. This is > especially true if the (n)umber of disks are a 2^n. I read that somewhere, but then every example shows 256k as being the strip size :( Now, with a 5 drives RAID5 array (which I'll be moving that server to over the next couple of weeks), 256k isn't an issue? or is there something better i should set it to? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664