From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Apr 2 07:38:41 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id HAA20480 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 2 Apr 1995 07:38:41 -0700 Received: from UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU (root@UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU [129.7.1.11]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id HAA20453 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 1995 07:38:34 -0700 Received: from Taronga.COM by UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU with UUCP id AA14363 (5.67a/IDA-1.5); Sun, 2 Apr 1995 09:34:08 -0500 Received: by bonkers.taronga.com (smail2.5p) id AA02422; 2 Apr 95 08:51:26 CDT (Sun) Received: (from peter@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id IAA02419; Sun, 2 Apr 1995 08:51:25 -0500 From: Peter da Silva Message-Id: <199504021351.IAA02419@bonkers.taronga.com> Subject: Re: large filesystems/multiple disks [RAID] To: rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com (Rodney W. Grimes) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 08:51:25 -0500 (CDT) Cc: terry@cs.weber.edu, PVinci@ix.netcom.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199504020825.AAA01169@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> from "Rodney W. Grimes" at Apr 2, 95 00:25:43 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 758 Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > It's fragile because you could for instance have four file systems > > > with blocks in the same 16M area of a disk. > > Um, why would you do that? Doesn't that sort of counter the whole reason > > for running file systems over multiple disks? > I would think so, the way Auspex handles this is that the blocking factor > can be tuned when the logical volume is created. [...] You miss the point. Why would you have multiple file systems on the same set of disks? [goes on to describe the performance benefits of striping] Yeh, then it becomes useful... but if you're going to that effort you'd go full RAID with parity, so a disk failure just means you slip another disk in and let it repopulate it. Yeh, it's more complex... but so is striping.