maobo wrote:
Hi,all
Yes, Raid10 read balance is the shortest position time first and
considering the sequential access condition. But its performance is
really poor from my test than raid0.
Single-stream write performance of raid0, raid1 and raid10 should be
of similar level (with raid5 and
On 12/23/07, maobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,all
Yes, I agree some of you. But in my test both using real life trace and
Iometer test I found that for absolutely read requests, RAID0 is better than
RAID10 (with same data disks: 3 disks in RAID0, 6 disks in RAID10). I don't
know why this
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,
Jon Nelson wrote:
My own tests on identical hardware (same mobo, disks, partitions,
everything) and same software, with the only difference being how
mdadm is invoked (the only changes here being level and possibly
layout) show that raid0 is about 15% faster on reads than the very
fast raid10,
