1 |
Am 29.11.2011 14:44, schrieb Michael Mol: |
2 |
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Florian Philipp <lists@×××××××××××.net> wrote: |
3 |
>> Am 29.11.2011 05:10, schrieb Michael Mol: |
4 |
>>> I've got four 750GB drives in addition to the installed system drive. |
5 |
>>> |
6 |
>>> I'd like to aggregate them and split them into a few volumes. My first |
7 |
>>> inclination would be to raid them and drop lvm on top. I know lvm well |
8 |
>>> enough, but I don't remember md that well. |
9 |
>>> |
10 |
>>> Since I don't recall md well, and this isn't urgent, I figure I can look |
11 |
>>> at the options. |
12 |
>>> |
13 |
>>> The obvious ones appear tobe mdraid, dmraid and btrfs. I'm not sure I'm |
14 |
>>> interested in btrfs until it's got a fsck that will repair errors, but |
15 |
>>> I'm looking forward to it once it's ready. |
16 |
>>> |
17 |
>>> Any options I missed? What are the advantages and disadvantages? |
18 |
>>> |
19 |
>>> ZZ |
20 |
>>> |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> Sounds good so far. Of course, you only need mdraid OR dmraid (md |
23 |
>> recommended). |
24 |
> |
25 |
> dmraid looks rather new on the block. Or, at least, I've been more |
26 |
> aware of md than dm over the years. What's its purpose, as compared to |
27 |
> dmraid? Why is mdraid recommended over it? |
28 |
> |
29 |
|
30 |
dmraid being new? Not really. Anyway: Under the hood, md and dm use the |
31 |
exactly same code in the kernel. They just provide different interfaces. |
32 |
mdraid is a linux-specific software RAID implemented on top of ordinary |
33 |
single-disk disk controllers. It works like a charm and any Linux system |
34 |
with any disk controller can work with it (if you ever change your |
35 |
hardware). |
36 |
|
37 |
dmraid provides a "fake-RAID": A software RAID with support of (or |
38 |
rather, under control of) a cheap on-board RAID controller. |
39 |
Performance-wise, it usually doesn't provide any kind of advantage |
40 |
because the kernel driver still has to do all the heavy lifting |
41 |
(therefore it uses the same code base as mdraid). Its most important |
42 |
disadvantage is that it binds you to the vendor of the chipset who |
43 |
determines the on-disk layout. Apparently, this gets better in the last |
44 |
few years because of some pretty major consolidations on the chipset |
45 |
market. It might be helpful if you consider dual-booting Windows on the |
46 |
same RAID (both systems ought to use the same disk layout by means of |
47 |
their respective drivers). |
48 |
|
49 |
|
50 |
>> What kind of RAID level do you want to use, 10 or 5? You |
51 |
>> can also split it: Use a smaller RAID 10 for performance-critical |
52 |
>> partitions like /usr and the more space-efficient RAID 5 for bulk like |
53 |
>> videos. You can handle this with one LVM volume group consisting of two |
54 |
>> physical volumes. Then you can decide on a per-logical-volume basis |
55 |
>> where it should allocate space and also migrate LVs between the two PVs. |
56 |
> |
57 |
> Since I've got four disks for the pool, I was thinking raid10 with lvm |
58 |
> on top, and a single lvm pv above that. |
59 |
> |
60 |
|
61 |
Yeah, that would also be my recommendation. But if storage efficiency is |
62 |
more relevant, RAID-5 with 4 disks brings you 750GB more usable storage. |