Peter Grandi wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 19:08:15 +,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Grandi) said:
[ ... ]
It's the raid10,f2 *read* performance in degraded mode that is
strange - I get almost exactly 50% of the non-degraded mode
read performance. Why is that?
[ ... ] the
>>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 19:08:15 +,
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Grandi) said:
[ ... ]
>> It's the raid10,f2 *read* performance in degraded mode that is
>> strange - I get almost exactly 50% of the non-degraded mode
>> read performance. Why is that?
> [ ... ] the mirror blocks have to be rea
>>> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:26:55 -0600, "Jon Nelson"
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I've found in some tests that raid10,f2 gives me the best I/O
> of any raid5 or raid10 format.
Mostly, depending on type of workload. Anyhow in general most
forms of RAID10 are cool, and handle disk losses better
I've found in some tests that raid10,f2 gives me the best I/O of any
raid5 or raid10 format. However, the performance of raid10,o2 and
raid10,n2 in degraded mode is nearly identical to the non-degraded
mode performance (for me, this hovers around 100MB/s). raid10,f2 has
degraded mode performance,
