Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 01:43:10 +0300 From: Sergey Lungu <sergey.lungu@gmail.com> To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GEOM stripe + concat Message-ID: <20060125014310.3f1ce1c9.sergey.lungu@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20060124222747.GA7617@garage.freebsd.pl> References: <20060122192257.273734cf.sergey.lungu@gmail.com> <20060124222747.GA7617@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:27:47 +0100 Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 07:22:57PM +0300, Sergey Lungu wrote: > +> Hello, > +> > +> I have FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE running on my FTP server. There are > three +> disks on that box: two identical 120GB and one 300GB. I am > using gvinum +> for stripping between first two disks. I am going to > give gstripe a +> try, sine gvinum is too unstable. > +> > +> So, the questin is: > +> Am I able to concatenate created stripe with 300GB disk? And is it > wise +> at all? > > I'd do something like this: > > da0 - 120GB disk > da1 - 120GB disk > da2 - 300GB disk > > da2a - 240GB partition > da2d - 60GB partition > > concat( stripe( concat(da0, da1), da2a ), da2d) > > In other words: > > # gconcat C0 da0 da1 > # gstripe S0 concat/C0 da2a > # gconcat C1 stripe/S0 da2d > # newfs -U /dev/concat/C1 > > This way you have 240GB in stripe and only 60GB without stripe (so > slower). Nice :) Perhaps this is dangerous and slow!? I'll try that. What about: da0 - 120GB da1 - 120GB da2 - 300GB da2a - 120GB da2d - 120GB da2e - 60GB concat(stripe(da0, da1, da2a, da2e), da2e) >From mathematical point of view this looks simplified :) -- Sergey Lungu It is better for civilization to be going down the drain, than to be coming up it.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060125014310.3f1ce1c9.sergey.lungu>