I understand that smaller raidgroup sizes and/or more volumes waste space for parity disks.
I know that some of the political considerations are for just that in order to lessen the odds of the dreaded double disk failure (DDDF).
What other considerations should I be looking at? Backups? Large number of qtrees? Large number of inodes?
What other Pro's does a large volume with a large (or at least default of 14) raidgroup size give me?
--Steve
--> --> From svawter@c-cube.com Wed Feb 21 16:00:44 2001 --> From: svawter@c-cube.com (Steve Vawter) --> To: toasters@mathworks.com --> Subject: Disk usage recomendations... --> --> Having a set of Filers that have been poorly planned and poorly configured, --> I would ask for a hand from fellow admins about how to proceed. --> (okay, I know the best way, buy a new cluster of 840's and migrate it all!) --> --> Given that I have 12 "36GB" disks (plus a hot spare) that have been --> added to one of my filers, should I: --> --> a) Build one large volume and control it's space via qtrees? --> a1) If so, should I lower the raidgroup size or leave it at 14? --> b) Build multiple (2? 3? 4?) volumes of smaller size --> --> Pro's & Con's for each approach would be greatly appreciated! --> --> Steve Vawter voice: 408-490-5310 fax: 408-490-8615 --> Staff UNIX Systems Administrator Steve.Vawter@C-Cube.COM --> -->