On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Neil Brown wrote:
> If raid on 2.4 is fast than raid in 2.2, we say "great".
> If it is slower, we look at the no-raid numbers.
> If no-raid on 2.4 is slow than no-raid on 2.2, we say "oh dear, the
> disc subsystem is slower on 2.4", and point the finger appropriately.
> If no-raid on 2.2 is fast than no-raid on 2.4, then we say "Hmm, must
> be a problem with raid" and point the finger there.
>
> Does that make sense?
In a way, yes. But raid could depend on other parts of the kernel more
heavily then no-raid disk access and thus could be more affected by
errors/problems in those parts.
D.
