Timeline for determine chunk size of an existing raid array
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 12 at 12:19 | comment | added | Joachim Wagner | You'd probably want the chunk size to be small enough so that application requests get distributed over drives and big enough to not spend a lot of time splitting or assembling data streams.For SSDs, it's get a bit more complicated as the internal erase block size of the drive will impact performance. A chunk size of 1 MiB or more can be a good choice. | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:37 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://unix.stackexchange.com/ with https://unix.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| S Oct 10, 2016 at 14:26 | history | suggested | Jonathan Holvey | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Corrected switch to -E as per quoted link. Clarification of this was added to prevent a 'minor' edit, and can be removed if desired.
|
| Oct 10, 2016 at 12:05 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 10, 2016 at 14:26 | |||||
| Aug 31, 2011 at 17:05 | comment | added | Huang Tao | i'm aware that i was using the 64k default chunk-size. i've read the man pages and the wikipedia article before i asked the question. however, since "the chunk-size specifies how much data to read serially from the participating disks", it does matter for raid 1 arrays, doesn't it? i mean, it's supposed to take chunk-size into consideration tuning the filesystem lying on the array, right? | |
| Aug 31, 2011 at 16:13 | comment | added | OldWolf | Your output says you're using RAID1. See the comment and two links I've added above. | |
| Aug 31, 2011 at 16:12 | history | edited | OldWolf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 214 characters in body
|
| Aug 31, 2011 at 16:03 | comment | added | OldWolf | I've seen two thoughts on this. One, since RAID 1 doesn't stripe, chunk size is irrelevant. In another, it's only relevant to reads/seeks. My guess is, it wasn't set since it's RAID one, and if it has a value, it's the default 64k | |
| Aug 30, 2011 at 8:38 | comment | added | Huang Tao | thanx for replying. i forgot to mention that i did call --examine on the device and nothing was printed about chunk-size. here's an example output. is it my mdadm version (v3.1.4) or metadata version that makes the difference? | |
| Aug 29, 2011 at 18:30 | history | answered | OldWolf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |