On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Janek Kozicki wrote:
I wish RHEL would support XFS/ZFS, but for now, I'm stuck with ext3.
there is ext4 (or ext4dev) - it's an ext3 modified to support 1024 PB size
(1048576 TB). You could check if it's feasible. Personally I'd always
stick with ext2/ext3/ext4 since it is
It is quite a box. There's a picture of the box with the cover removed
on Sun's website:
http://www.sun.com/images/k3/k3_sunfirex4500_4.jpg
>From the X4500 homepage, there's a gallery of additional pictures. The
drives drop in from the top. Massive fans channel air in the small
gaps between the d
> I wonder how long it would take to run an fsck on one large filesystem?
:)
I would imagine you'd have time to order a new system, build it, and
restore the backups before the fsck was done!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAI
Quoting Norman Elton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I posed the question a few weeks ago about how to best accommodate
software RAID over an array of 48 disks (a Sun X4500 server, a.k.a.
Thumper). I appreciate all the suggestions.
Well, the hardware is here. It is indeed six Marvell 88SX6081 SATA
control
Norman Elton said: (by the date of Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:19:35 -0500)
> I wish RHEL would support XFS/ZFS, but for now, I'm stuck with ext3.
there is ext4 (or ext4dev) - it's an ext3 modified to support 1024 PB size
(1048576 TB). You could check if it's feasible. Personally I'd always
stick wi
>> Hi, sounds like a monster server. I am interested in how you will make
>> the space useful to remote machines- iscsi? this is what I am
>> researching currently.
Yes, it's a honker of a box. It will be collecting data from various
"collector" servers. The plan right now is to collect the file t
Peter Grandi wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:28:20 +1100, Neil Brown
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[ ... what to do with 48 drive Sun Thumpers ... ]
neilb> I wouldn't create a raid5 or raid6 on all 48 devices.
neilb> RAID5 only survives a single device failure and with that
neilb> many devi
>>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:28:20 +1100, Neil Brown
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[ ... what to do with 48 drive Sun Thumpers ... ]
neilb> I wouldn't create a raid5 or raid6 on all 48 devices.
neilb> RAID5 only survives a single device failure and with that
neilb> many devices, the chance of a sec
Mattias Wadenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There are those that have run Linux MD RAID on thumpers before. I
> vaguely recall some driver issues (unrelated to MD) that made it less
> suitable than solaris, but that might be fixed in recent kernels.
I think that was mainly an issue for peopl
Norman Elton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We're investigating the possibility of running Linux (RHEL) on top of
> Sun's X4500 Thumper box:
>
> http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4500/
I think BNL's evalation of Solaris/ZFS vs. Linux/MD on a thumper
might be of interest:
http://hepix.caspur.it/s
Thiemo Nagel wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
16k read64k write
chunk
sizeRAID 5RAID 6RAID 5RAID 6
128k492497268270
256k615530288270
512k625607230174
1024k 65062017075
What is your stripe cache size
Bill Davidsen wrote:
16k read64k write
chunk
sizeRAID 5RAID 6RAID 5RAID 6
128k492497268270
256k615530288270
512k625607230174
1024k 65062017075
What is your stripe cache size?
I didn't fiddle w
Mattias Wadenstein wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
On Tuesday December 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're investigating the possibility of running Linux (RHEL) on top of
Sun's X4500 Thumper box:
http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4500/
Basically, it's a server with 48 SATA hard dr
Thiemo Nagel wrote:
Performance of the raw device is fair:
# dd if=/dev/md2 of=/dev/zero bs=128k count=64k
8589934592 bytes (8.6 GB) copied, 15.6071 seconds, 550 MB/s
Somewhat less through ext3 (created with -E stride=64):
# dd if=largetestfile of=/dev/zero bs=128k count=64k
8589934592 bytes (8.
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Thiemo Nagel wrote:
Performance of the raw device is fair:
# dd if=/dev/md2 of=/dev/zero bs=128k count=64k
8589934592 bytes (8.6 GB) copied, 15.6071 seconds, 550 MB/s
Somewhat less through ext3 (created with -E stride=64):
# dd if=largetestfile of=/d
Guy Watkins wrote:
} -Original Message-
} From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:linux-raid-
} [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brendan Conoboy
} Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 3:36 PM
} To: Norman Elton
} Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
} Subject: Re: Raid over 48 disks
}
} Norman Elton wrote
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
On Tuesday December 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're investigating the possibility of running Linux (RHEL) on top of
Sun's X4500 Thumper box:
http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4500/
Basically, it's a server with 48 SATA hard drives. No hardware RAID.
It'
@vger.kernel.org
} Subject: Re: Raid over 48 disks
}
} Norman Elton wrote:
} > We're investigating the possibility of running Linux (RHEL) on top of
} > Sun's X4500 Thumper box:
} >
} > http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4500/
}
} Neat- 6 8 port SATA controllers! It'll be worth
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Guy Watkins wrote:
} -Original Message-
} From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:linux-raid-
} [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brendan Conoboy
} Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 3:36 PM
} To: Norman Elton
} Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
} Subject: Re: Raid over 48 disks
} -Original Message-
} From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:linux-raid-
} [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brendan Conoboy
} Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 3:36 PM
} To: Norman Elton
} Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
} Subject: Re: Raid over 48 disks
}
} Norman Elton wrote:
} > We
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Jon Nelson wrote:
On 12/18/07, Thiemo Nagel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Performance of the raw device is fair:
# dd if=/dev/md2 of=/dev/zero bs=128k count=64k
8589934592 bytes (8.6 GB) copied, 15.6071 seconds, 550 MB/s
Somewhat less through ext3 (created with -E stride=64
16k read64k write
chunk
sizeRAID 5 RAID 6 RAID 5 RAID 6
128k492 497 268 270
256k615 530 288 270
512k625 607 230 174
1024k 650 620 170 75
It strikes me that these numbers are meaningless without knowing if
that i
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Thiemo Nagel wrote:
Performance of the raw device is fair:
# dd if=/dev/md2 of=/dev/zero bs=128k count=64k
8589934592 bytes (8.6 GB) copied, 15.6071 seconds, 550 MB/s
Somewhat less through ext3 (created with -E stride=64):
# dd if=largetestfile of=/dev/zero bs=128k count=
On 12/18/07, Thiemo Nagel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Performance of the raw device is fair:
> >> # dd if=/dev/md2 of=/dev/zero bs=128k count=64k
> >> 8589934592 bytes (8.6 GB) copied, 15.6071 seconds, 550 MB/s
> >>
> >> Somewhat less through ext3 (created with -E stride=64):
> >> # dd if=large
Performance of the raw device is fair:
# dd if=/dev/md2 of=/dev/zero bs=128k count=64k
8589934592 bytes (8.6 GB) copied, 15.6071 seconds, 550 MB/s
Somewhat less through ext3 (created with -E stride=64):
# dd if=largetestfile of=/dev/zero bs=128k count=64k
8589934592 bytes (8.6 GB) copied, 26.4103
Norman Elton wrote:
We're investigating the possibility of running Linux (RHEL) on top of
Sun's X4500 Thumper box:
http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4500/
Neat- 6 8 port SATA controllers! It'll be worth checking to be sure
each controller has equal bandwidth. If some controllers are on slowe
On Tuesday December 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We're investigating the possibility of running Linux (RHEL) on top of
> Sun's X4500 Thumper box:
>
> http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4500/
>
> Basically, it's a server with 48 SATA hard drives. No hardware RAID.
> It's designed for Sun's ZFS
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Thiemo Nagel wrote:
Dear Norman,
So... we're curious how Linux will handle such a beast. Has anyone run MD
software RAID over so many disks? Then piled LVM/ext3 on top of that? Any
suggestions?
Are we crazy to think this is even possible?
I'm running 22x 500GB disks
Dear Norman,
I'm not familiar with RocketRaid. Is it handling the RAID for you, or
are you using MD?
I'm using md. The controller is in a mode that exports all drives
individually.
Kind regards,
Thiemo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of
Thiemo --
I'm not familiar with RocketRaid. Is it handling the RAID for you, or
are you using MD?
Thanks, all, for your feedback! I'm still surprised nobody has tried
this on one of these Sun boxes yet. I've signed up for some demo
hardware. I'll post what I find.
Norman
On Dec 18, 20
Dear Norman,
So... we're curious how Linux will handle such a beast. Has anyone run
MD software RAID over so many disks? Then piled LVM/ext3 on top of
that? Any suggestions?
Are we crazy to think this is even possible?
I'm running 22x 500GB disks attached to RocketRaid2340 and NFORCE-MCP55
On Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 12:29:27PM -0500, Norman Elton wrote:
> We're investigating the possibility of running Linux (RHEL) on top of Sun's
> X4500 Thumper box:
>
> http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4500/
>
> Basically, it's a server with 48 SATA hard drives. No hardware RAID. It's
> designed for S
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Norman Elton wrote:
We're investigating the possibility of running Linux (RHEL) on top of Sun's
X4500 Thumper box:
http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4500/
Basically, it's a server with 48 SATA hard drives. No hardware RAID. It's
designed for Sun's ZFS filesystem.
So...
33 matches
Mail list logo
