From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 11 15:36:05 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9F1016A49E for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:36:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vd@datamax.bg) Received: from jengal.datamax.bg (jengal.datamax.bg [82.103.104.21]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97DC913C4A6 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:36:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vd@datamax.bg) Received: from qlovarnika.bg.datamax (qlovarnika.bg.datamax [192.168.10.2]) by jengal.datamax.bg (Postfix) with SMTP id 95D79B848; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:12:58 +0200 (EET) Received: (nullmailer pid 68934 invoked by uid 1002); Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:12:58 -0000 Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:12:58 +0200 From: Vasil Dimov To: Ivan Voras Message-ID: <20070111151258.GA68876@qlovarnika.bg.datamax> References: <200701102321.01562.lists@jnielsen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Best practices for using gjournal with gmirror? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: vd@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:36:05 -0000 --0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 15:30:06 +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: > John Nielsen wrote: [...] > > is it better to mirror at the slice=20 > > level (journal and fs on different partitions in the same mirror) or at= the=20 > > partition level (journal and fs each have their own mirror) or does it= =20 > > matter? >=20 > It doesn't matter. By default journal will be created inside the same > partition as the file system. It matters a bit - in case of a single mirror (and all partitions on top of it) when there is a crash, during disk activity, the whole mirror will get rebuild. While if there is a separate mirror for each filesystem the chance is that some filesystems will not be active during the power failure/crash and thus their mirror will not need to be rebuild. It is just a matter of speed, not data loss, and it depends on the usage of the filesystems. Currently I have 2 mirrors and after a crash just one of them is rebuild because the other one is rarely used. --=20 Vasil Dimov gro.DSBeerF@dv % Shaw's Principle: Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it. --0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFFplP6Fw6SP/bBpCARArSvAKDfJM1NlnUHMmlOfv850l6EW31uWACdEuqY HQX8Qn4IowAdyWd6VDZyKWM= =kPjo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE--