Difference between revisions of "Talk:RAID"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Flag the 'Max drive' as closed, as it has been removed in the latest version.)
(Major re-write)
(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Alternate setups and filesystems==
Just wanted to mention these directions worked great for me.  It would be nice to have more examples for alternate setups and good ideas for filesystems, etc..
[[User:AskApache|AskApache]] 15:07, 22 February 2012 (EST)
:Hey AskApache, it's really rewarding to hear that this article was helpful. I spent a fair amount of time modifying and updating the old ''Installing with Software RAID or LVM'' article. Unfortunately, I was never able to spend enough time updating this article. Thankfully, '''6arms1leg''' has made some excellent contributions, along with yourself.
:Anyway, could you explain what alternate setups might apply? The filesystem question is an interesting one. I didn't realize there are alternatives to ''Linux raid auto''. And that the ''Non-FS data'' allows you to format the array with any filesystem. After some quick searching, the [http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/Issues/2009/108/RAID-Performance Optimum RAID] article on Linux Pro Magazine looks like a good place to start.
:~ [[User:Filam|Filam]] 09:51, 23 February 2012 (EST)
::Sure Filam,  basically I would like more advanced and basic information about everthing!  But specifically partioning and filesystems.
::* If you have 5 disks of different sizes, and the smallest disk is 500GB and the largest disk is 1.5TB, you can create a raid array on all 5 by creating a 500GB partition on each disk and use those partitions to create the array.
::* Some people using raid like to create a swap partition on each disk and then make a raid 0 array out of those for a fast swap (which is actually kind of redundant as swap already does raid 0 like striping when given multiple swaps with the same priority).
::* Back to the 5 disks, you could create a 100GB partition on each disk and create a raid 0 array out of that for a super fast /usr, /var, /lib directories which can be replaced in case of data loss.  And then create 400GB partition on all 5 disks and create a raid 5 array on those partitions for a fast yet data-redundant /home/ directory.
::* You can create any filesystem on a raid array, but some are noticeably better than others. The same things apply here that are mentioned in the Maximizing Performance article.
::* Basically, XFS might be the best to use for a backup raid array containing large backup files, while reiserfs or ext4 might be the best for /home/.
::* When making an XFS filesystem on a raid array, XFS automagically recognizes it is a raid device and optimizes the XFS filesystem settings for you, however ext and reiserfs may need tweaked settings for optimization.
::* Filesystem settings correlate to the chuck-size and other mdadm options in the initial array creation as well, and should be factored in before creating the array.
::* More instructions on backing up partition tables and maybe even how to restore (good excercise to leave to reader)
::* Different ways to mount the devices in /etc/fstab
::* How to test speed
::* More instructions on customizing the mdadm.conf file
::I'm working on this too but probably won't be editing anything again for awhile.. Thanks for this article!
::--[[User:AskApache|AskApache]] 13:00, 27 February 2012 (EST)
:Thanks, but i don't really get your points.
:What do you mean by filesystem?
:A RAID array can be formatted with almost any filesystem that supports its size, while some of course are better suited than others. To the system the array is just a block device under ''/dev'' like any other.
:If you just mean the fs-type tag in the partition table, the only suitable otions for RAID are "Non-FS data" and "Linux raid auto". But the fs-type tag you choose during partitioning is independant from the filesystem you format a disk/array with. The fs-tag only is important for system processes to recognize the correct filesystem (e.g. auto assembly of a RAID array during boot or using ''mount'' without the ''-t'' option). "Non-FS data" is the preferred method (see our RAID wiki page [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/RAID#Create_the_array here], the paragraph after the note).
:Sure, there is a lot to improve on that wiki page, but before someone makes the effort to write about the details, it would be nice to complete some of the basics. For example we have the most common RAID levels explained in the ''Introduction'' section but only one step-by-step guide for a level 5 array.
:Also, I disagree with some of your edits in the following sections:
::{{note|Moved into [[#Copy the partition table]], [[#Prepare the device]], and [[#Removed information about BAARF and related stuff]] below. ~ [[User:Filam|Filam]] 21:02, 5 March 2012 (EST)}}
:Regarding the combination of RAID and filesystem parameters, that fact is mentioned in [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/RAID#Build_the_array this section]. There also is a reminder to do the [http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Disk_Optimization RAID-math], suitable at least for ext-filesystems.
:Some things on your wishlist, I think belong in other wiki pages (esp. information about ''/etc/fstab'' and partitioning)
:Don't take me wrong, I'm glad someone cares about this page.
:[[User:6arms1leg|6arms1leg]] 18:41, 5 March 2012 (EST)
::It's great to hear from you, '''6arms1leg''', and thanks for the thorough explanation. If it wouldn't be much trouble would you mind moving each of your points about AskApache's edits into a separate section? Or, '''AskApache''', if you come across this first and would like to respond, just copy the point you would like to respond to into another section. Thanks, ~ [[User:Filam|Filam]] 10:52, 4 March 2012 (EST)
:::Not too much trouble at all, but I'm not quite sure what you are picturing. As you can see, I edited my post and moved my points into different sections. To me, the way I rearranged it now, it doesn't improve readability nor provides it a better overview. Please feel free to re-edit my post the way you think it looks best. [[User:6arms1leg|6arms1leg]] 18:41, 5 March 2012 (EST)
::::Ah, it is probably more clear if I just edit it. The readability was fine, it was just difficult to respond to. ~ [[User:Filam|Filam]] 21:02, 5 March 2012 (EST)
:::::Thanks for your effort. [[User:6arms1leg|6arms1leg]] 04:45, 6 March 2012 (EST)
==Copy the partition table==
{{note|Moved from [[#Alternate setups and filesystems]]. ~ [[User:Filam|Filam]] 21:02, 5 March 2012 (EST)}}
I don't like or understand your edits on the [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/RAID#Copy_the_partition_table Copy the partition table section] (no offense). To me, your edits make the process more complicated. For example, why did you remove the command ''# sfdisk -d /dev/path_to_formatted_array_disk | sfdisk /dev/path_to_unformatted_array_disk'' and replaced it with one that first dumps a file which you then copy to the next disk? And why would you want to keep a backup of your partition table?
:I also prefer the use of a pipe. ~ [[User:Filam|Filam]] 21:02, 5 March 2012 (EST)
::Not sure why you don't like the edit, lol.  The reason I replaced the sfdisk command using a pipe to one using a file is 2-fold: 
::# Depending on how your shell is setup or currently configured, using a pipe will not work correctly. This can be caused by a couple things such as the IFS variable and various shell options.
:::I can't think of any shell in which such a simple pipe wouldn't work. People who change their shell variables and other standard options probably know what they are doing and in that case they should also know the consequences (different shell behavior) and how to still execute a command with a pipe. As far as I know, all commands in this wiki assume a standard shell (with working pipes). [[User:6arms1leg|6arms1leg]] 05:08, 7 March 2012 (EST)
::::The cause is actually due to how sfdisk is written, not how the shell is written.  IOW, this is specific to sfdisk, not pipes. ~ [[User:AskApache|AskApache]] 10:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
::# By sending the output to a file you can easily replicate it in the future if your original partition table is corrupted.
:: -[[User:AskApache|AskApache]] 21:28, 6 March 2012 (EST)
:::I still don't get this backup thing. Each of your member disks in the array has that partition table. If one gets corrupted you still can replicate it from any of the other member disks. In the unlikely event that all disks fail, you don't need that partition table anyway since you have to create a new array. The only exception I can think of is some rare exotic RAID setup, which only uses some (identical) partitions of each member disk while other partitions on the disk differ and with it the partition table. For such a setup I would prefer a seperate section (or link to another page as it is not RAID specific), which explanes how to backup the partition table. [[User:6arms1leg|6arms1leg]] 05:08, 7 March 2012 (EST)
::::Backups are a way of life, but you make good points.  It is very close to totally unneccessary but backups for me are a habit.  Should be moved in separate section.. ~ [[User:AskApache|AskApache]] 10:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
== Preparing and Planning for RAID Recovery ==
I've run into several RAID issues (almost all fs related) and recovering from a bad/broken/damaged RAID can be quite difficult and way confusing.  I wrote a shell script that should be run after creating and assembling the array, and optionally after creating the filesystem -- the purpose is to have backups and all the info needed for a recovery situation.  Not sure where to put it so created a tmp user page [[User:AskApache/raid-backup-log]].  Please check it out and help put it/parts of it where they should go on the wiki.  -- [[User:AskApache|AskApache]] ([[User talk:AskApache|talk]]) 05:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
== GPT partitions ==
== GPT partitions ==
Line 85: Line 13:
: [[User:Jasonwryan|jasonwryan]] ([[User talk:Jasonwryan|talk]]) 00:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
: [[User:Jasonwryan|jasonwryan]] ([[User talk:Jasonwryan|talk]]) 00:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
==<s>Max drives stated in RAID level comparison</s>==
:: This is here because it's how I prepare hard-drives before setting them up for RAID.  Not everyone uses GPT *yet* so didn't want to just stick it on the main page..  ~ [[User:AskApache|AskApache]] ([[User talk:AskApache|talk]]) 09:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The chart under the heading '''RAID level comparison''' states a max number of drives for each RAID levelWhere do these numbers come from?
They seem quite erroneous, particularly the 2-drive max stated for RAID 1. I run a few servers with 3-way RAID 1, and as an experiment just did a 6-way RAID 1 with no complaintAlso, I googled and easily found examples of md arrays larger than 16 drives.  Here's a 20 drive RAID 6: http://louwrentius.com/blog/2009/07/20-disk-18-tb-raid-6-storage-based-on-debian-linux/
I'm removing these figures as they're obviously not correct.  If there are limits to the max number of decices, please add them and include a source that documents them.
--[[User:Brucebertrand|Brucebertrand]] ([[User talk:Brucebertrand|talk]]) 00:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
== Major re-write ==
I've done a pretty major overhaul to the article over the past week.  Please check it for accuracy.  One of my goals to was add a thread of continuity to the article so it reads as complete work rather than as a hodgepodge of advice.  I feel that mixing formatting types and utils for example is confusing to newbies.  I recommend sticking with GTP as you can see in the text.[[User:Graysky|Graysky]] ([[User talk:Graysky|talk]]) 23:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:22, 5 October 2013

GPT partitions

zap (destroy) GPT and MBR data structures

 sgdisk --zap-all /dev/sdb

create largest possible new partition

 sgdisk --largest-new=1 /dev/sdb

check partition table integrity

 sgdisk --verify /dev/sdb

print partition table

 sgdisk --print /dev/sdb
Is this a mis-paste? I can't quite see why it is here?
jasonwryan (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
This is here because it's how I prepare hard-drives before setting them up for RAID. Not everyone uses GPT *yet* so didn't want to just stick it on the main page.. ~ AskApache (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Major re-write

I've done a pretty major overhaul to the article over the past week. Please check it for accuracy. One of my goals to was add a thread of continuity to the article so it reads as complete work rather than as a hodgepodge of advice. I feel that mixing formatting types and utils for example is confusing to newbies. I recommend sticking with GTP as you can see in the text.Graysky (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)