| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706181349290.14890@asgard.lang.hm> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:52:04 -0700 (PDT) From: david@...g.hm To: Brendan Conoboy <blc@...hat.com> cc: Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Wakko Warner <wakko@...mx.eu.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: limits on raid On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > david@...g.hm wrote: >> yes, sorry, ultra 320 wide. > > Exactly how many channels and drives? one channel, 2 OS drives plus the 45 drives in the array. yes I realize that there will be bottlenecks with this, the large capacity is to handle longer history (it's going to be a 30TB circular buffer being fed by a pair of OC-12 links) it appears that my big mistake was not understanding what /proc/mdstat is telling me. David Lang - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists