From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Tue Apr 19 03:23:05 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8EEB13BEC for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 03:23:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E661610E7 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 03:23:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1asMFc-0003gP-57 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 05:22:56 +0200 Received: from pool-72-66-1-32.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([72.66.1.32]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 05:22:56 +0200 Received: from nightrecon by pool-72-66-1-32.washdc.fios.verizon.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 05:22:56 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: Michael Powell Subject: Re: Raid 1+0 Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:23:54 -0400 Lines: 49 Message-ID: References: <571533F4.8040406@bananmonarki.se> Reply-To: nightrecon@hotmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-72-66-1-32.washdc.fios.verizon.net X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 03:23:05 -0000 Bernt Hansson wrote: > Hello list > > My motherboard has a raid chip on it (AMD SB750), so my plan was to use > it. Since i never used the chip for raid, i thought i might try. > > So far this has been done. > > Set up 2 arrays with 2 discs in each array with raid1 on both. > > Boot up freebsd 10.3-R. Both arrays are found > > GEOM_RAID: Promise: Disk ada0 state changed from NONE to ACTIVE. > GEOM_RAID: Promise: Subdisk RAID 1 LD 1:0-ada0 state changed from > NONE to ACTIVE. > GEOM_RAID: Promise: Disk ada1 state changed from NONE to ACTIVE. > GEOM_RAID: Promise: Subdisk RAID 1 LD 1:1-ada1 state changed from > NONE to ACTIVE. > GEOM_RAID: Promise: Volume started. > GEOM_RAID: Promise: Volume RAID 1 LD 1 state changed from STARTING to > OPTIMAL. > GEOM_RAID: Promise: Provider raid/r0 for volume RAID 1 LD 1 created. > GEOM_RAID: Promise: Disk ada2 state changed from NONE to ACTIVE. > GEOM_RAID: Promise: Subdisk RAID 1 LD 2:0-ada2 state changed from > NONE to ACTIVE. > GEOM_RAID: Promise: Disk ada3 state changed from NONE to ACTIVE. > GEOM_RAID: Promise: Subdisk RAID 1 LD 2:1-ada3 state changed from > NONE to ACTIVE. > GEOM_RAID: Promise: Volume started. > GEOM_RAID: Promise: Volume RAID 1 LD 2 state changed from STARTING to > OPTIMAL. > GEOM_RAID: Promise: Provider raid/r1 for volume RAID 1 LD 2 created. > > Used gstripe to stripe the arrays raid/r0 + r1 into stripe0 > > Newfs/mount all work. My question, is this a raid 1+0 or 0+1? This is RAID 1+0. Characteristics of such gives better I/O performance for lots of small random reads/writes such as the way a database server uses disk. The flip side of this (RAID 0+1) will have better performance for sequential throughput for use such as file server for storing backups and other large files. -Mike