xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Xfs delaylog hanged up

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Xfs delaylog hanged up
From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:40:45 -0600
In-reply-to: <4CEC5E15.7080307@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4CEAC412.9000406@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20101122232929.GJ13830@dastard> <4CEBA2D5.2020708@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20101123204609.GW22876@dastard> <20101123234811.0ea3c41c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4CEC5E15.7080307@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
Spelic put forth on 11/23/2010 6:36 PM:
> On 11/23/2010 11:48 PM, Emmanuel Florac wrote:
>> So Spelic, you're using the 3Ware as a SATA controller, but not a RAID
>> controller? This is quite unexpected, though going with md
>> instead provides better IOPS.
>>    
> 
> Yep, because I know MD better, I can see the code, it's more flexible
> and customizable, can be controlled with scripts more easily... Also
> parameters to the underlying drives can be controlled if I use MD, and
> it's easier to align filesystem to stripes. Also my time is better spent
> learning it as MD won't change the next time I buy a different hw
> controller.
> What would be the advantage of using hardware raid?

If there is no advantage then why buy an $800+ real hardware RAID card
and then deploy it as a vanilla SAS/SATA HBA with software RAID?  What a
waste of a decent RAID card...

You could have gone with two of these instead
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816117157

saving ~$500 and having similar if not slightly better performance with
software RAID.

-- 
Stan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>