On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
I'm going to try another approach, I'll describe it when I get results (or
Hardly any difference at whatsoever, only on the per char for read/write is
it any faster..?
Am I misreading what you are doing here... you have the underlying data on
the actual hardware devices 64k aligned by using either the whole device or
starting a partition on a 64k boundary? I'm dubious that you will see a
difference any other way, after all the translations take place.
I'm trying creating a raid array using loop devices created with the "offset"
parameter, but I suspect that I will wind up doing a test after just
repartitioning the drives, painful as that will be.
Average of 3 runs taken:
$ cat align/*log|grep ,
$ cat noalign/*log|grep ,
Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark
1. The first I made partitions on each drive like I normally do.
2. The second test was I followed the EMC document on how to properly
align the partitions and I followed Microsoft's document on how to
calculate the correct offset, I used 512 for 256k stripe.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html