Thread (22 messages) 22 messages, 10 authors, 2008-05-03

Re: Sharing disks amoung multiple software RAIDs

From: Bill Davidsen <hidden>
Date: 2008-05-02 21:17:07
Also in: lkml

Alex Davis wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- On Thu, 5/1/08, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com> wrote:

  
quoted
From: Justin Piszcz <redacted>
Subject: Re: Sharing disks amoung multiple software RAIDs
To: "Alex Davis" <redacted>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Thursday, May 1, 2008, 8:50 AM
On Thu, 1 May 2008, Alex Davis wrote:

    
quoted
Is this a bad thing? I'm guessing that it is, but
      
I want independent
    
quoted
confirmation before I spoke to someone I know
      
who's doing this.
    
quoted
Thanks


    
      
What is the use case, why would you want to do that?
I have seen people on the list do it before, for example
are you going to be utilizing both raids at the same time? 
    
Yes.

  
quoted
If so, I would advise against it.

What is the reasoning?
    
No, I don't want to do this. I know someone who is, and I wanted to get
more input before I advised them to get more disks. The RAIDs are running
in degraded mode, so they'll need more disks anyway. Since they are (or
hopefully soon will be) buying more disks, I'll advise them to get
dedicated disks for each RAID.
  
Depending on the use, dedicated disk may not be better, unless the 
budget is large. I ran an application which had a heavily read database 
and a large collection of files thich were read based on offsets read 
from the database. I have a limited number of drives available 
(rackspace limit, not $). I partitioned the drives with a small 
partition for the heavily read database, using three copies raid1, and 
raid5 for the more lightly used data, across the same disks.

I tried almost every layout possible with six drives, and spreading the 
required head motion to all drives was a big win on the heavily read 
database, while spreading the storage over all drives was required 
because of capacity. And split and shared the performance was optimized. 
And it did stay up with a drive fail, although "up" means "didn't lose 
data" rather than "usefully fast."



-- 
Bill Davidsen [off-list ref]
  "Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
  be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark 

Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help