Marco Peereboom wrote:
First let me defend softraid. The rebuild code is designed to offer
maximum data protection. With this is mind certain assumptions were
made.
Sorry... I haven't stated that I think that data protection is king.
Any performance increase that could compromise the disk co
First let me defend softraid. The rebuild code is designed to offer
maximum data protection. With this is mind certain assumptions were
made.
That said, I am not opposed to a patch to improve performance but with
all things softraid corner-cases are many and complicated. A valid
patch will keep
Matthew Roberts wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I have been experimenting with a softraid mirror, using two cheap SATA
>> disks.
>> In general the performance is very good - except when rebuilding. A
>> quick
>> set of sums suggests that the problem is seek time.
>>
>> The disks are 7200rpm, therefore one ca
I wrote:
I have been experimenting with a softraid mirror, using two cheap SATA
disks.
In general the performance is very good - except when rebuilding. A quick
set of sums suggests that the problem is seek time.
The disks are 7200rpm, therefore one can hope for 120 seeks per second.
"systat io
Matthew Roberts wrote:
> I have been experimenting with a softraid mirror, using two cheap SATA
> disks.
> In general the performance is very good - except when rebuilding. A quick
> set of sums suggests that the problem is seek time.
>
> The disks are 7200rpm, therefore one can hope for 120 seek
I have been experimenting with a softraid mirror, using two cheap SATA disks.
In general the performance is very good - except when rebuilding. A quick
set of sums suggests that the problem is seek time.
The disks are 7200rpm, therefore one can hope for 120 seeks per second.
"systat iostat" (whi
6 matches
Mail list logo
