SUMMARY: any advantages of small VM volumes?

Everybody agreed that fewer-bigger volumes are better.

Darren pointed out:
"
VM starts at "block 0" on the disk.  This is usually the outer, faster
portion, but transparent block remapping may slightly invalidate that. "

which is good to know. I'll probably build 1-2 small volumes in the
beginning of the disk (for small files/fast access files), and a large
volume afterward from now on.

It was also suggested to attach DRL to mirrored volumes.


Thanks to 
Reggie Beavers
Darren Dunham
Jay Lessert
for replies


On Thu, 29 May 2003, NetComrade wrote:

> I have a few a5200 disk arrays, striped and mirrored, but each disk array
> has 10 volumes. Since vxprint is extremely ugly and cumbersome to look at,
> I figured that I want to combine some of the adjacent volumes into one
> (more precisely, to ditch current volumes, and rebuild them with bigger
> subdisks).
> 
> I was wondering if there are any disadvantages of doing that.
> 
> One thing I kind of thought of, is that with smaller volumes you have more
> control over which part of the disk you're using (e.g. outer sectors are
> supposedly faster). But I never was able to determine where VM starts
> counting when building subdisks.
> 
> Additionally, after a crash, bigger volume would take longer to sync up,
> which would be especially bad if volume has barely any data in it. (as
> opposed to a nearly full volume, which only uses a smaller part of the
> disk).
> 
> But for disk arrays nearly full, this would really ease administration.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks, will summurize.
_______________________________________________
sunmanagers mailing list
sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers