From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Nf09u-0002A8-HP for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:10:23 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C9661E1B2F for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:10:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail2.pcorp.com.au (mail2.pcorp.com.au [150.101.72.19]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0442E1566 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 23:38:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.pcorp.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3778F1074060 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:08:54 +0930 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.pcorp.com.au Received: from mail2.pcorp.com.au ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.pcorp.com.au [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j1gJVV42+5Oh; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:08:53 +0930 (CST) Received: from [172.16.0.52] (unknown [172.16.0.52]) by mail2.pcorp.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B644107405C for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:08:53 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 1-Terabyte drives - 4K sector sizes? -> bar performance so far From: Iain Buchanan To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20100209133448.019a633a@zaphod.digimed.co.uk> References: <5bdc1c8b1002070827i14f59047k39a695900ebe9889@mail.gmail.com> <20100207193947.GB30196@math.princeton.edu> <5bdc1c8b1002071342v6c81cf13gde7bcef72be5017b@mail.gmail.com> <20100208020850.GA21754@math.princeton.edu> <5bdc1c8b1002080910p37f78fdch99827fab37be32cb@mail.gmail.com> <4B705D6B.1090803@gmail.com> <58965d8a1002081234n97b4b5apa88e262dc53b3d9a@mail.gmail.com> <20100209002757.0ec74d01@digimed.co.uk> <63F56C2B-97D3-4A98-9338-ED1D82FFAB1E@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> <20100209133448.019a633a@zaphod.digimed.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:07:41 +0930 Message-ID: <1265758661.3193.38.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: a9671a2d-b689-4c11-a397-231b3075aaec X-Archives-Hash: 93aa423ba89c4af1aef1c142c61f6f19 On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 13:34 +0000, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:46:40 +0000, Stroller wrote: > > > > With the RAID, you could fail one disk, repartition, re-add it, > > > rinse and > > > repeat. But that doesn't take care of the time issue. > > > > Aren't you thinking of LVM, or something? > > No. The very nature of RAID is redundancy, so you could remove one disk > from the array to modify its setup then replace it. so long as you didn't have any non-detectable disk errors before removing the disk, or any drive failure while one of the drives were removed. And the deterioration in performance while each disk was removed in turn might take more time than its worth. Of course RAID 1 wouldn't suffer from this (with >2 disks)... -- Iain Buchanan Keep on keepin' on.