Maurice, i'm curious, why do you think this is beneficial? 1. A larger step-size? That would be totally depended on the IO-size written to disk. Without knowing the IO-size being read and written, it is impossible to say what is the correct value. Default is therefore best (the 64k you mentioned is default for 6+2 by the way) 2. Increasing the growth size beyond the default? An increased growth-size leads to an increased row-depth for an LD. With an increased row-depth the growth extends are touching up to all drives behind that node. Touching all drives also means that each "set of rows" is impacted during a drive failure. Further more it diminishes the flexibility of the system to "re-level" over (new) drives by growing into new empty drives first. I understand this is complex and a real debatable one. Personally i see little real gain (except really specific circumstances). Yes it gives a more even spread over the drives (initially), but from experience it also gives a bigger impact when there are drive issues.
_________________ The goal is to achieve the best results by following the clients wishes. If they want to have a house build upside down standing on its chimney, it's up to you to figure out how do it, while still making it usable.
|