home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!zl2tnm!toyunix!don
- Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
- Subject: Re: Bound volume sets: are they a bad idea?
- Message-ID: <3320318@zl2tnm.gen.nz>
- From: don@zl2tnm.gen.nz (Don Stokes)
- Date: 14 Nov 92 02:45:18 GMT
- Sender: news@zl2tnm.gen.nz (GNEWS Version 2.0 news poster.)
- Distribution: world
- Organization: The Wolery
- Lines: 23
-
- brydon@asl.slb.com (Harvey Brydon (918)250-4312) writes:
- > Several other posters have mentioned the MTBF aspect. Also, keep in mind that
- > you are taking 2 'large' volumes and making them into one. This effectively
- > increases the size of the cluster factor. If it is 4 on one of these disks,
-
- True for stripe sets. False for volume sets.
-
- With a stripe set, you have what appears to be a big disk, with one storage
- bitmap and one index file. The minimum cluster factor may have to be made
- bigger.
-
- Volume sets are different. Each volume in a volume set has its own index
- file and storage bitmap. File headers only refer to blocks in one volume;
- if a file must span volumes, it will have an extension header on the
- subsequent volumes (and the file ID contains a relative volume number so
- that a file or extension header can be located). Thus, the minimum cluster
- factor for each volume is the same as it would be if each were a standalone
- disk.
-
- --
- Don Stokes, ZL2TNM (DS555) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz (home)
- Network Manager, Computing Services Centre don@vuw.ac.nz (work)
- Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand +64-4-495-5052
-