Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*RAID5\s+internal\s+log\s+question\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*RAID5\s+internal\s+log\s+question\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. xfs (score: 1): Author: Mihai RUSU <dizzy@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 23:04:37 +0200 (EET); recommended to have the log of an XFS partition out of a RAID5. Is that performance impact that bad also with hardware RAID ? Because its rather strange to make that external log reside out of the R; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00306.html (7,460 bytes)
2. ion (score: 1): Author: "Martin K. Petersen" <mkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 15 Feb 2002 16:20:32 -0500; No. Only with Linux Software RAID5 because of the way it does stripe caching. -- Martin K. Petersen, Principal Linux Consultant, Linuxcare, Inc. mkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, http://www.linuxcare.com/ SGI XFS; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00307.html (8,431 bytes)
3. ath (score: 1): Author: Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 15 Feb 2002 15:26:30 -0600; You could potentially exacerbate an IO issue, even with HW RAID, when running in a degraded mode(failed drive) or during a rebuild.The outer logging, if on a mirror, would be able to provide good thr; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00309.html (8,717 bytes)
4. ion (score: 1): Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:34:17 +0100; From the XFS FAQ and other threads on this list I understand that is recommended to have the log of an XFS partition out of a RAID5. Is that performance impact that bad also with hardware RAID ? Beca; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00310.html (8,112 bytes)
5. ult (score: 1): Author: Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 15 Feb 2002 17:06:04 -0600; I disagree a little bit. If you have poor hardware, or "low-cost" hardware pushing your RAID subsystem, then I'd say you will have bad IO in these instances. In general, if you buy decent hardware, t; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00315.html (9,225 bytes)
6. fix (score: 1): Author: "Martin K. Petersen" <mkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 17 Feb 2002 15:14:51 -0500; [XFS vs. RAID5 performance] This seems to be an area of constant confusion. Let me describe why XFS sucks on Linux software RAID5. It has nothing to do with controllers, physical disk layout, or any; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00328.html (11,218 bytes)
7. in xfs (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 23:04:37 +0200 (EET); /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00880.html (7,460 bytes)
8. uestion (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 15 Feb 2002 16:20:32 -0500; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00881.html (8,431 bytes)
9. to_path (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 15 Feb 2002 15:26:30 -0600; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00883.html (8,717 bytes)
10. uestion (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:34:17 +0100; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00884.html (8,112 bytes)
11. default (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 15 Feb 2002 17:06:04 -0600; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00889.html (9,225 bytes)
12. cro fix (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 17 Feb 2002 15:14:51 -0500; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00902.html (11,218 bytes)
13. RAID5 internal log question (score: 1): Author: Mihai RUSU <dizzy@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 23:04:37 +0200 (EET); Hi recommended to have the log of an XFS partition out of a RAID5. Is that performance impact that bad also with hardware RAID ? Because its rather strange to make that external log reside out of the; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg01454.html (7,460 bytes)
14. Re: RAID5 internal log question (score: 1): Author: "Martin K. Petersen" <mkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 15 Feb 2002 16:20:32 -0500; No. Only with Linux Software RAID5 because of the way it does stripe caching. -- Martin K. Petersen, Principal Linux Consultant, Linuxcare, Inc. mkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, http://www.linuxcare.com/ SGI XFS; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg01455.html (8,557 bytes)
15. Re: RAID5 internal log question (score: 1): Author: Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 15 Feb 2002 15:26:30 -0600; You could potentially exacerbate an IO issue, even with HW RAID, when running in a degraded mode(failed drive) or during a rebuild.The outer logging, if on a mirror, would be able to provide good thr; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg01457.html (8,813 bytes)
16. Re: RAID5 internal log question (score: 1): Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:34:17 +0100; From the XFS FAQ and other threads on this list I understand that is recommended to have the log of an XFS partition out of a RAID5. Is that performance impact that bad also with hardware RAID ? Beca; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg01458.html (8,200 bytes)
17. Re: RAID5 internal log question (score: 1): Author: Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 15 Feb 2002 17:06:04 -0600; I disagree a little bit. If you have poor hardware, or "low-cost" hardware pushing your RAID subsystem, then I'd say you will have bad IO in these instances. In general, if you buy decent hardware, t; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg01463.html (9,307 bytes)
18. Re: RAID5 internal log question (score: 1): Author: "Martin K. Petersen" <mkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 17 Feb 2002 15:14:51 -0500; [XFS vs. RAID5 performance] This seems to be an area of constant confusion. Let me describe why XFS sucks on Linux software RAID5. It has nothing to do with controllers, physical disk layout, or any; /archives/xfs/2002-02/msg01476.html (11,411 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]