So I wonder if one could take this stripe size thing further and say
that a larger stripe size is more likely to result in requests getting
served parallized across disks which would lead to increased
Again, thanks to all people on this list, I know that I have learnt a
_hell_ of alot since subscribing.
On 4/18/05, Alex Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok - well - I am partially wrong...
> If you're stripe size is 64Kb, and you are reading 256k worth of data,
> it will be spread across four drives, so you will need to read from
> four devices to get your 256k of data (RAID 0 or 5 or 10), but if you
> are only reading 64kb of data, I guess you would only need to read
> from one disk.
> So my assertion that adding more drives doesn't help is pretty
> wrong... particularly with OLTP because it's always dealing with
> blocks that are smaller that the stripe size.
> Alex Turner
> On 4/18/05, Jacques Caron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > At 18:56 18/04/2005, Alex Turner wrote:
> > >All drives are required to fill every request in all RAID levels
> > No, this is definitely wrong. In many cases, most drives don't actually
> > have the data requested, how could they handle the request?
> > When reading one random sector, only *one* drive out of N is ever used to
> > service any given request, be it RAID 0, 1, 0+1, 1+0 or 5.
> > When writing:
> > - in RAID 0, 1 drive
> > - in RAID 1, RAID 0+1 or 1+0, 2 drives
> > - in RAID 5, you need to read on all drives and write on 2.
> > Otherwise, what would be the point of RAID 0, 0+1 or 1+0?
> > Jacques.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?