Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:51:42 +0200 From: Alson van der Meulen <alson+ml@alm.flutnet.org> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Does this disk/filesystem layout look sane to you? Message-ID: <20090614215142.GA32937@tafi.alm.flutnet.org> In-Reply-To: <cf9b1ee00906140917j86b1e4ev4f8e0a1fb5f6b8@mail.gmail.com> References: <cf9b1ee00906140916n64a6c0cbr69332811bfa2aa62@mail.gmail.com> <cf9b1ee00906140917j86b1e4ev4f8e0a1fb5f6b8@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Dan Naumov <dan.naumov@gmail.com> [2009-06-14 18:17]: > I just wanted to have an extra pair (or a dozen) of eyes look this > configuration over before I commit to it (tested it in VMWare just in > case, it works, so I am considering doing this on real hardware soon). > I drew a nice diagram: http://www.pastebin.ca/1460089 Looks fine to me. Note that your swap doesn't have any redundancy, so if you lose a disk, the kernel will likely panic as soon as it hits any swap (the swap space is striped across the disks), this is something you can easily test in a VM. The kernel will only use four swap devices by default. I would put the swap on gmirror. Swap performance is rarely critical (if you're hitting swap often you should buy more RAM), and if you have 2TB disks, a few extra gigabytes less is not an issue (I usually make swap slightly larger than RAM for crash dumps, sometimes twice that if I plan to add RAM later). > Is there any actual downside to having a 5-way mirror vs a 2-way or a 3-way one? Write performance is slightly slower than a single disk (you have to wait for all five disks to finish), but these partitions are rarely performance-critical. Depending on your workload, it may be an issue for /var (databases, logs, mail), but you could always move that data to a ZFS filesystem. It should be fine for a file server. Any other solution would just add more complexity. Alson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090614215142.GA32937>