On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 12:47:53PM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 December 2001 at 3:06:14 +0100, Bernd Walter wrote:
> > Currently if we have two writes in two stripes each, all initated before
> > the first finished, the drive has to seek between the two stripes, as
> > the second w
On Thursday, 13 December 2001 at 3:06:14 +0100, Bernd Walter wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 10:54:13AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 12 December 2001 at 12:53:37 +0100, Bernd Walter wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:22:05PM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 December 2
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 10:54:13AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 December 2001 at 12:53:37 +0100, Bernd Walter wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:22:05PM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 3:11:21 +0100, Bernd Walter wrote:
> >> 2. Cache the parity blo
On Wednesday, 12 December 2001 at 12:53:37 +0100, Bernd Walter wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:22:05PM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 3:11:21 +0100, Bernd Walter wrote:
>>> striped:
>>> If you have 512byte stripes and have 2 disks.
>>> You access 64k which is put
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:22:05PM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 3:11:21 +0100, Bernd Walter wrote:
> > striped:
> > If you have 512byte stripes and have 2 disks.
> > You access 64k which is put into 2 32k transactions onto the disk.
>
> Only if your software optimiz
On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 23:41:51 +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 09:00:34AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 15:34:37 +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:06:33AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
On Monday, 10 December 2001 at
On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 3:11:21 +0100, Bernd Walter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:06:33AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
>> On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 10:30:04 -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>>>
> performance without it - for reading OR writing. It doesn't matter
> so m
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 09:00:34AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 15:34:37 +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:06:33AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> >> On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 10:30:04 -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> >>>
..
> >>> and will g
On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 15:34:37 +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:06:33AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
>> On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 10:30:04 -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>>>
> performance without it - for reading OR writing. It doesn't matter
> so mu
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 03:34:37PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:06:33AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> > I think this is what Mike was referring to when talking about parity
> > calculation. In any case, going across a stripe boundary is not a
> > good idea, though of course
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:06:33AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 10:30:04 -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> >
> >>> performance without it - for reading OR writing. It doesn't matter
> >>> so much for RAID{1,10}, but it matters a whole lot for something like
> >>
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:06:33AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 10:30:04 -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> >
> >>> performance without it - for reading OR writing. It doesn't matter
> >>> so much for RAID{1,10}, but it matters a whole lot for something like
> >>
On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 10:30:04 -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
>>> performance without it - for reading OR writing. It doesn't matter
>>> so much for RAID{1,10}, but it matters a whole lot for something like
>>> RAID-5 where the difference between a spindle-synced read or wri
13 matches
Mail list logo
