Janek Kozicki wrote:
writing on raid10 is supposed to be half the speed of reading. That's
because it must write to both mirrors.
I am not 100% certain about the following rules, but afaik any raid
configuration has a theoretical[1] maximum read speed of the combined speed of
all disks in
Bill Davidsen said: (by the date of Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:16:14 -0500)
Janek Kozicki wrote:
Justin Piszcz said: (by the date of Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:28:27 -0500
(EST))
writing on raid10 is supposed to be half the speed of reading. That's
because it must write to both mirrors.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 02:55:07AM +0100, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:36:39PM +0100, Janek Kozicki wrote:
Keld Jørn Simonsen said: (by the date of Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:00:07
+0100)
All the raid10's will have double time for writing, and raid5 and raid6
will
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 02:55:07AM +0100, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:36:39PM +0100, Janek Kozicki wrote:
Keld Jørn Simonsen said: (by the date of Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:00:07 +0100)
All the raid10's will have double
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 11:54:27AM -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 02:55:07AM +0100, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:36:39PM +0100, Janek Kozicki wrote:
Keld Jørn Simonsen said: (by the date of
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 11:54:27AM -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 02:55:07AM +0100, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:36:39PM +0100, Janek Kozicki wrote:
Justin Piszcz said: (by the date of Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:28:27 -0500 (EST))
I remember testing with bonnie++ and raid10 was about half the speed
(200-265 MiB/s) as RAID5 (400-420 MiB/s) for sequential output,
writing on raid10 is supposed to be half the speed of reading. That's
because it
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 05:28:27PM -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote:
Could you give some figures?
I remember testing with bonnie++ and raid10 was about half the speed
(200-265 MiB/s) as RAID5 (400-420 MiB/s) for sequential output, but input
was closer to RAID5 speeds/did not seem affected
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 05:28:27PM -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote:
Could you give some figures?
I remember testing with bonnie++ and raid10 was about half the speed
(200-265 MiB/s) as RAID5 (400-420 MiB/s) for sequential output, but input
was
Keld Jørn Simonsen said: (by the date of Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:55:07 +0100)
Given that you want maximum thruput for both reading and writing, I
think there is only one way to go, that is raid0.
All the raid10's will have double time for writing, and raid5 and raid6
will also have double
Janek Kozicki wrote:
Hello,
Yes, I know that some levels give faster reading and slower writing, etc.
I want to talk here about a typical workstation usage: compiling
stuff (like kernel), editing openoffice docs, browsing web, reading
email (email: I have a webdir format, and in boost mailing
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 07:21:33PM +0100, Janek Kozicki wrote:
Hello,
Yes, I know that some levels give faster reading and slower writing, etc.
I want to talk here about a typical workstation usage: compiling
stuff (like kernel), editing openoffice docs, browsing web, reading
email
Keld Jørn Simonsen said: (by the date of Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:00:07 +0100)
Teoretically, raid0 and raid10,f2 should be the same for reading, given the
same size of the md partition, etc. For writing, raid10,f2 should be half the
speed of
raid0. This should go both for sequential and
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:36:39PM +0100, Janek Kozicki wrote:
Keld Jørn Simonsen said: (by the date of Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:00:07 +0100)
Teoretically, raid0 and raid10,f2 should be the same for reading, given the
same size of the md partition, etc. For writing, raid10,f2 should be half
14 matches
Mail list logo
