Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: MythTV: Mythtvnz

partitions

 

 

MythTV mythtvnz RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


mythtv at objectivity

May 11, 2009, 4:41 PM

Post #1 of 12 (1921 views)
Permalink
partitions

I am creating a new backend server for both myth and samba. The current
samba box has the files in /home/samba/ and is mainly user documents,
movie trailers, digital photos and mp3s.

The new machine has 3 500GB drives in a raid 5 set with a 320GB drive
split as /boot, swap and /

The question is am I best splitting the raid set into two partitions
being /home and /var/lib or symlink the /var/lib to /home/myth/lib and
just have one partition?

_______________________________________________
mythtvnz mailing list
mythtvnz [at] lists
http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/mythtvnz
Archives http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/mythtvnz/


criggie at criggie

May 11, 2009, 4:50 PM

Post #2 of 12 (1838 views)
Permalink
Re: partitions [In reply to]

Karl Leaning wrote:
> I am creating a new backend server for both myth and samba. The current
> samba box has the files in /home/samba/ and is mainly user documents,
> movie trailers, digital photos and mp3s.
>
> The new machine has 3 500GB drives in a raid 5 set with a 320GB drive
> split as /boot, swap and /
>
> The question is am I best splitting the raid set into two partitions
> being /home and /var/lib or symlink the /var/lib to /home/myth/lib and
> just have one partition?

One partition is easiest. You can delete files from /bigdrive/samba which
would make more space in /bigdrive/mythstore

If you want to be excessively geeky, you could use LVM, but its really
overkill.

Another option is to do a raid1 of your important data, and leave myth a
single plain drive to record to. I don't see TV recordings as being
critical data.


--
Criggie

http://criggie.dyndns.org/




_______________________________________________
mythtvnz mailing list
mythtvnz [at] lists
http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/mythtvnz
Archives http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/mythtvnz/


sam at samborambo

May 12, 2009, 7:37 PM

Post #3 of 12 (1814 views)
Permalink
Re: partitions [In reply to]

While on the subject of drives and partitions, has anyone looked into
striping together a bunch of USB flash drives? My current setup is 5x500GB
WD GP drives in RAID5+LVM for movies and recordings and a 250GB drive for
OS, swap and torrents. The 250GB drive never gets more than 20GB used and I
don't really need the swap space at all with 2GB of RAM. The RAID array
spins down after 20 minutes of inactivity using the spindown utility. This
is a good power saver of about 25W for most of the time but does present an
annoying problem - when you want to watch live TV after the array has spun
down, it needs around 8 seconds to spin up and will usually fail to start
live TV a couple of times for those impatiently repeatedly pressing the
button. What's needed is better access time.

I was thinking that since solid state drives are still relatively
expensive, I could stripe together 4x 8GB usb sticks on a hub and allocate
8GB for OS, 8GB for torrents and 16GB for live TV. The aggregate bandwidth
of the USB RAID array should be plenty for live TV and the OS. Plus, I'm
hoping that channel changing will be a bit snappier with the better access
times of flash. Wear on the flash memory shouldn't really be a problem for
live TV since it would probably take a week to write over the full 16GB
space allocated. These flash drives usually state a life of 100,000 writes
resulting in around 2000 years of average TV viewing. I understand that
/var will have to be mounted on tmpfs. Is there anything else I need to be
aware of with this setup? Has someone else here done something similar?

I'm also looking for a better solution other than LVM for my main RAID
array. LVM puts too much of a performance hit on the system - I usually get
around 50MB/s sustained! I do like the feature of being able to make
read-only snapshots for online automated fscking of LVM volumes. It also
makes migrating drives a lot easier. I've been watching the development of
ext4 and btrfs as a replacement but I don't know whether they're proven
reliable yet.

Sam.

_______________________________________________
mythtvnz mailing list
mythtvnz [at] lists
http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/mythtvnz
Archives http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/mythtvnz/


millst at np

May 12, 2009, 8:46 PM

Post #4 of 12 (1821 views)
Permalink
Re: partitions [In reply to]

>While on the subject of drives and partitions, has anyone looked into
>striping together a bunch of USB flash drives?

I would suggest using a 16Gb or 32Gb Compact Flash card with an IDE adapter.
Saves gluing it all together.
You can buy them for not a huge amount more than a HDD now.

Toby

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft®
Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail



_______________________________________________
mythtvnz mailing list
mythtvnz [at] lists
http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/mythtvnz
Archives http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/mythtvnz/


steven at openmedia

May 12, 2009, 9:01 PM

Post #5 of 12 (1817 views)
Permalink
Re: partitions [In reply to]

On Wed, May 13, 2009 2:37 pm, Sam Hadley-Jones wrote:
> While on the subject of drives and partitions, has anyone looked into
> striping together a bunch of USB flash drives? My current setup is 5x500GB
> WD GP drives in RAID5+LVM for movies and recordings and a 250GB drive for
> OS, swap and torrents. The 250GB drive never gets more than 20GB used and
> I
> don't really need the swap space at all with 2GB of RAM. The RAID array
> spins down after 20 minutes of inactivity using the spindown utility. This
> is a good power saver of about 25W for most of the time but does present
> an
> annoying problem - when you want to watch live TV after the array has spun
> down, it needs around 8 seconds to spin up and will usually fail to start
> live TV a couple of times for those impatiently repeatedly pressing the
> button. What's needed is better access time.
>
> I was thinking that since solid state drives are still relatively
> expensive, I could stripe together 4x 8GB usb sticks on a hub and allocate
> 8GB for OS, 8GB for torrents and 16GB for live TV. The aggregate bandwidth
> of the USB RAID array should be plenty for live TV and the OS. Plus, I'm
> hoping that channel changing will be a bit snappier with the better access
> times of flash. Wear on the flash memory shouldn't really be a problem
> for
> live TV since it would probably take a week to write over the full 16GB
> space allocated. These flash drives usually state a life of 100,000 writes
> resulting in around 2000 years of average TV viewing. I understand that
> /var will have to be mounted on tmpfs. Is there anything else I need to be
> aware of with this setup? Has someone else here done something similar?

Why not allocate a partition on your 250GB HD for Live TV?

> I'm also looking for a better solution other than LVM for my main RAID
> array. LVM puts too much of a performance hit on the system - I usually
> get
> around 50MB/s sustained! I do like the feature of being able to make
> read-only snapshots for online automated fscking of LVM volumes. It also
> makes migrating drives a lot easier. I've been watching the development of
> ext4 and btrfs as a replacement but I don't know whether they're proven
> reliable yet.

What makes you think LVM is the performance issue here, and what file
system are you using over the top. The way that LVM is implemented you
should see very little performance hit.

For a start run "hdparm -t" on the members of your raid set, and the raid5
device, and an LVM partition and compare the numbers.


Steve
--------------------------------------------
Steven Ellis - Technical Director
OpenMedia Limited - The Home of myPVR
email - steven [at] openmedia
website - http://www.openmedia.co.nz

_______________________________________________
mythtvnz mailing list
mythtvnz [at] lists
http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/mythtvnz
Archives http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/mythtvnz/


millst at np

May 12, 2009, 9:03 PM

Post #6 of 12 (1823 views)
Permalink
Re: partitions [In reply to]

>I would suggest using a 16Gb or 32Gb Compact Flash card with an IDE
adapter.
>Saves gluing it all together.

Although... thinking about it more.
25watts running 24 hours a day is about $54 of power a year.
That means you have to spend less than $54 to get a payback within one year.
More than a year and SSD's will probably have doubled in capacity and
halved in price.

I would tend to hold on and spend that $54 on the power to maintain your
status quo and wait till solid state drives come down a bit more in price
and expand in size.

Then you can replace all your hard disks with SSD's, spend a lot less
money, get more capacity and also reduce your power bill from that point
forward.

$54 does not buy a lot of hardware right now that is going to really give
you the capacity you are likely to need over the next 2 to 3 years and you
will probably find yourself running out of space and needing to spend more
money than what you will save in power over that period of time.

Toby



--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web



_______________________________________________
mythtvnz mailing list
mythtvnz [at] lists
http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/mythtvnz
Archives http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/mythtvnz/


tdegibson at gmail

May 13, 2009, 1:19 AM

Post #7 of 12 (1822 views)
Permalink
Re: partitions [In reply to]

I've got all my backed up movies on a nas box with an ever expanding LV
using ext4 as the file system, my only concern is single drive failure = all
data gone.

Tim

2009/5/13 millst [at] np <millst [at] np>

> >I would suggest using a 16Gb or 32Gb Compact Flash card with an IDE
> adapter.
> >Saves gluing it all together.
>
> Although... thinking about it more.
> 25watts running 24 hours a day is about $54 of power a year.
> That means you have to spend less than $54 to get a payback within one
> year.
> More than a year and SSD's will probably have doubled in capacity and
> halved in price.
>
> I would tend to hold on and spend that $54 on the power to maintain your
> status quo and wait till solid state drives come down a bit more in price
> and expand in size.
>
> Then you can replace all your hard disks with SSD's, spend a lot less
> money, get more capacity and also reduce your power bill from that point
> forward.
>
> $54 does not buy a lot of hardware right now that is going to really give
> you the capacity you are likely to need over the next 2 to 3 years and you
> will probably find yourself running out of space and needing to spend more
> money than what you will save in power over that period of time.
>
> Toby
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mythtvnz mailing list
> mythtvnz [at] lists
> http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/mythtvnz
> Archives http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/mythtvnz/
>



--
Regards
Tim, Donna and Erin Gibson


criggie at criggie

May 13, 2009, 12:25 PM

Post #8 of 12 (1797 views)
Permalink
Re: partitions [In reply to]

Tim Gibson wrote:
> I've got all my backed up movies on a nas box with an ever expanding LV
> using ext4 as the file system, my only concern is single drive failure =
> all data gone.

Storage groups looks like the answer, for normal recordings. Lose a
drive and gone are the recordings on that drive only.

For exported recordings.... put them on DVD and a raid5, or a raid1 if
you care about them enough. Tradeoff between disk usage and cost and
protection.

--
Criggie

http://criggie.dyndns.org/

_______________________________________________
mythtvnz mailing list
mythtvnz [at] lists
http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/mythtvnz
Archives http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/mythtvnz/


tdegibson at gmail

May 13, 2009, 10:50 PM

Post #9 of 12 (1795 views)
Permalink
Re: partitions [In reply to]

mmm hijacking the thread...

I've had a go at storage groups and they do seem a great way of say putting
movies here and other thing's there even over my network it works well.
Create a nfs mount in say /mnt/TheStore/Movies for movies...

Back to Karl's first question - I'd make sure all recording's go to the
raid5 array and you can still set samba up to share from there,

Tim

2009/5/14 criggie <criggie [at] criggie>

> Tim Gibson wrote:
> > I've got all my backed up movies on a nas box with an ever expanding LV
> > using ext4 as the file system, my only concern is single drive failure =
> > all data gone.
>
> Storage groups looks like the answer, for normal recordings. Lose a
> drive and gone are the recordings on that drive only.
>
> For exported recordings.... put them on DVD and a raid5, or a raid1 if
> you care about them enough. Tradeoff between disk usage and cost and
> protection.
>
> --
> Criggie
>
> http://criggie.dyndns.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> mythtvnz mailing list
> mythtvnz [at] lists
> http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/mythtvnz
> Archives http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/mythtvnz/
>



--
Regards
Tim, Donna and Erin Gibson


sam at samborambo

May 14, 2009, 1:26 AM

Post #10 of 12 (1790 views)
Permalink
Re: partitions [In reply to]

>
> I'm really surprised at your freeze up issues. I'm using ext3 and slow
> deletes and no longer have any playback issues.
>
> Did you have a chance to run some performance tests on the raid5 array
> like I suggested as i'm wondering if you have other issues.
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Steven Ellis - Technical Director
> OpenMedia Limited - The Home of myPVR
> email - steven [at] openmedia
> website - http://www.openmedia.co.nz
>

Here's some test results. A word of warning to any newbies here that would
like to do similar benchmarking; dd is a very powerful command and can kill
data indiscriminately with the most minor typo with no
confirmation/warning.

Just a recap, this is 5x 500GB Western Digital Green Power SATA drives in
RAID 5 as /dev/md0. Three are connected to the motherboard SATA connectors
and the remaining two to a PCIe SATA card. LVM storage group on top with a
single PV.

mounted:
/dev/mapper/storage-main on /storage type reiserfs (rw)
/dev/mapper/storage-tv on /tv type xfs (rw,allocsize=512m)

Raw drive member of array:

sam [at] mediabo:~$ sudo dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=1048576 count=1024
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 16.8546 s, 63.7 MB/s

Raw RAID5 array:

sam [at] mediabo:~$ sudo dd if=/dev/md0 of=/dev/null bs=1048576 count=1024
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 13.9099 s, 77.2 MB/s

LVM LV:

sam [at] mediabo:~$ sudo dd if=/dev/storage/main of=/dev/null bs=1048576
count=1024
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 21.7457 s, 49.4 MB/s

Filesystem on LV 'main' random file read:

sam [at] mediabo:~$ sudo dd if=/storage/videos/Movies/Gangs\ of\ New\ York.avi
of=/dev/null bs=1048576 count=1024
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 26.1345 s, 41.1 MB/s

Filesystem on LV 'main' write:

sam [at] mediabo:~$ sudo dd of=/storage/testfile if=/dev/zero bs=1048576
count=1024
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 27.2666 s, 39.4 MB/s

Deleting file on 'main':

sam [at] mediabo:~$ time sudo rm /storage/testfile

real 0m1.260s
user 0m0.008s
sys 0m1.084s

Filesystem on LV 'tv' write:

sam [at] mediabo:~$ sudo dd of=/tv/testfile if=/dev/zero bs=1048576
count=10241024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 14.4985 s, 74.1 MB/s

Deleting file on 'tv':

sam [at] mediabo:~$ time sudo rm /tv/testfile

real 0m0.653s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.488s

Filesystem on LV 'tv' random file read:

sam [at] mediabo:~$ sudo dd if=/tv/2920_20090514175900.mpg of=/dev/null
bs=1048576 count=1024
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 13.2303 s, 81.2 MB/s


Conclusion: Inconclusive. The last test showed a higher throughput on the
XFS filesystem than on the underlying LV container. I must admit, this is
not a very controlled test and the backend may have been accessing other
parts of the array at the same time.

That said, I think its safe to assume that the RAID 5 array is a serious
bottleneck. Theoretical speed of the array should be close to 240MB/s. I'm
thinking its either the RAID 5 parity computation or serious latency issues
between the motherboard controller and the PCIe controller.

Others may not see having high throughput as being important. However,
manipulating this much data, whether it be copying, hashing, etc, can take
hours if not days.

Sam.

_______________________________________________
mythtvnz mailing list
mythtvnz [at] lists
http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/mythtvnz
Archives http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/mythtvnz/


hads at nice

May 14, 2009, 2:34 AM

Post #11 of 12 (1789 views)
Permalink
Re: partitions [In reply to]

On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 20:26 +1200, Sam Hadley-Jones wrote:
> That said, I think its safe to assume that the RAID 5 array is a serious
> bottleneck. Theoretical speed of the array should be close to 240MB/s. I'm
> thinking its either the RAID 5 parity computation or serious latency issues
> between the motherboard controller and the PCIe controller.

For comparison, here's a RAID5 (no LVM) array on my home server;

hads [at] beave:~$ sudo hdparm -t /dev/sdb

/dev/sdb:
Timing buffered disk reads: 194 MB in 3.02 seconds = 64.14 MB/sec
hads [at] beave:~$ sudo hdparm -t /dev/sdc

/dev/sdc:
Timing buffered disk reads: 310 MB in 3.01 seconds = 102.82 MB/sec
hads [at] beave:~$ sudo hdparm -t /dev/sdd

/dev/sdd:
Timing buffered disk reads: 296 MB in 3.02 seconds = 98.09 MB/sec
hads [at] beave:~$ sudo hdparm -t /dev/sde

/dev/sde:
Timing buffered disk reads: 222 MB in 3.03 seconds = 73.38 MB/sec
hads [at] beave:~$ sudo hdparm -t /dev/md0

/dev/md0:
Timing buffered disk reads: 380 MB in 3.00 seconds = 126.47 MB/sec
hads [at] beave:~$


You'll see that sdb and sde are slow, they are on an old PCI SATA
controller, the others are on the onboard controller from a cheap ASUS
motherboard.

hads

--
http://nicegear.co.nz
New Zealands Open Source Hardware Supplier


_______________________________________________
mythtvnz mailing list
mythtvnz [at] lists
http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/mythtvnz
Archives http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/mythtvnz/


steven at openmedia

May 14, 2009, 2:54 AM

Post #12 of 12 (1786 views)
Permalink
Re: partitions [In reply to]

On 14/05/2009, at 8:26 PM, Sam Hadley-Jones wrote:

>>
>> I'm really surprised at your freeze up issues. I'm using ext3 and
>> slow
>> deletes and no longer have any playback issues.
>>
>> Did you have a chance to run some performance tests on the raid5
>> array
>> like I suggested as i'm wondering if you have other issues.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------
>> Steven Ellis - Technical Director
>> OpenMedia Limited - The Home of myPVR
>> email - steven [at] openmedia
>> website - http://www.openmedia.co.nz
>>
>
> Here's some test results. A word of warning to any newbies here that
> would
> like to do similar benchmarking; dd is a very powerful command and
> can kill
> data indiscriminately with the most minor typo with no
> confirmation/warning.
>
> Just a recap, this is 5x 500GB Western Digital Green Power SATA
> drives in
> RAID 5 as /dev/md0. Three are connected to the motherboard SATA
> connectors
> and the remaining two to a PCIe SATA card. LVM storage group on top
> with a
> single PV.
>
> mounted:
> /dev/mapper/storage-main on /storage type reiserfs (rw)
> /dev/mapper/storage-tv on /tv type xfs (rw,allocsize=512m)
>
> Raw drive member of array:
>
> sam [at] mediabo:~$ sudo dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=1048576 count=1024
> 1024+0 records in
> 1024+0 records out
> 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 16.8546 s, 63.7 MB/s
>
> Raw RAID5 array:
>
> sam [at] mediabo:~$ sudo dd if=/dev/md0 of=/dev/null bs=1048576 count=1024
> 1024+0 records in
> 1024+0 records out
> 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 13.9099 s, 77.2 MB/s
>
> LVM LV:
>
> sam [at] mediabo:~$ sudo dd if=/dev/storage/main of=/dev/null bs=1048576
> count=1024
> 1024+0 records in
> 1024+0 records out
> 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 21.7457 s, 49.4 MB/s
>
> Filesystem on LV 'main' random file read:
>
> sam [at] mediabo:~$ sudo dd if=/storage/videos/Movies/Gangs\ of\ New\
> York.avi
> of=/dev/null bs=1048576 count=1024
> 1024+0 records in
> 1024+0 records out
> 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 26.1345 s, 41.1 MB/s
>
> Filesystem on LV 'main' write:
>
> sam [at] mediabo:~$ sudo dd of=/storage/testfile if=/dev/zero bs=1048576
> count=1024
> 1024+0 records in
> 1024+0 records out
> 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 27.2666 s, 39.4 MB/s
>
> Deleting file on 'main':
>
> sam [at] mediabo:~$ time sudo rm /storage/testfile
>
> real 0m1.260s
> user 0m0.008s
> sys 0m1.084s
>
> Filesystem on LV 'tv' write:
>
> sam [at] mediabo:~$ sudo dd of=/tv/testfile if=/dev/zero bs=1048576
> count=10241024+0 records in
> 1024+0 records out
> 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 14.4985 s, 74.1 MB/s
>
> Deleting file on 'tv':
>
> sam [at] mediabo:~$ time sudo rm /tv/testfile
>
> real 0m0.653s
> user 0m0.000s
> sys 0m0.488s
>
> Filesystem on LV 'tv' random file read:
>
> sam [at] mediabo:~$ sudo dd if=/tv/2920_20090514175900.mpg of=/dev/null
> bs=1048576 count=1024
> 1024+0 records in
> 1024+0 records out
> 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 13.2303 s, 81.2 MB/s
>
>
> Conclusion: Inconclusive. The last test showed a higher throughput
> on the
> XFS filesystem than on the underlying LV container. I must admit,
> this is
> not a very controlled test and the backend may have been accessing
> other
> parts of the array at the same time.
>
> That said, I think its safe to assume that the RAID 5 array is a
> serious
> bottleneck. Theoretical speed of the array should be close to 240MB/
> s. I'm
> thinking its either the RAID 5 parity computation or serious latency
> issues
> between the motherboard controller and the PCIe controller.
>
> Others may not see having high throughput as being important. However,
> manipulating this much data, whether it be copying, hashing, etc,
> can take
> hours if not days.
>

Don't expect to see 240MB/s. Your numbers are quite sane. In general I
see raid 5 as 33% faster than the individual drives for a 4 drive array.

Even with hardware raid I seldom see things much faster.


Steven Ellis - Technical Director
OpenMedia Limited
email - steven [at] openmedia
website - http://www.openmedia.co.nz

MythTV mythtvnz RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.