Richard Scobie wrote:
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
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
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,
Michael Tokarev said: (by the date of Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:56:09 +0300)
Janek Kozicki wrote:
what's your kernel version? I recall that recently there have been
some works regarding load balancing.
It was in my original email:
The kernel is 2.6.23
Strange I missed the new raid10
On 12/22/07, Janek Kozicki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Tokarev said: (by the date of Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:56:09 +0300)
Janek Kozicki wrote:
what's your kernel version? I recall that recently there have been
some works regarding load balancing.
It was in my original email:
Michael Tokarev wrote:
I just noticed that with Linux software RAID10, disk
usage isn't equal at all, that is, most reads are
done from the first part of mirror(s) only.
Attached (disk-hour.png) is a little graph demonstrating
this (please don't blame me for poor choice of colors and
the
Janek Kozicki wrote:
Michael Tokarev said: (by the date of Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:53:38 +0300)
I just noticed that with Linux software RAID10, disk
usage isn't equal at all, that is, most reads are
done from the first part of mirror(s) only.
what's your kernel version? I recall that recently
