On 1/19/06, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The read balancing in raid1 is clunky at best. I've often thought
there must be a better way. I've never thought what the better way
might be (though I haven't tried very hard).
If anyone would like to experiment with the read-balancing code,
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:09:27PM +, Andy Smith wrote:
I'm wondering: how well does md currently make use of the fact there
are multiple devices in the different (non-parity) RAID levels for
optimising reading and writing?
Thanks all for your answers.
signature.asc
Description: Digital
2006/1/18, Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
scheduled read-requests. Would it probably make sense to split one
single read over all mirrors that are currently idle?
A I got it from the other thread - seek times :)
Perhaps using
On Wednesday January 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2006/1/18, Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
scheduled read-requests. Would it probably make sense to split one
single read over all mirrors that are currently idle?
A I got it
I'm wondering: how well does md currently make use of the fact there
are multiple devices in the different (non-parity) RAID levels for
optimising reading and writing?
For example, are *writes* to a 2 device RAID-0 approaching twice as
fast as to a single device? If not, are they any faster at
On Tuesday January 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm wondering: how well does md currently make use of the fact there
are multiple devices in the different (non-parity) RAID levels for
optimising reading and writing?
It does the best it can. Every request from the filesystem goes
directly to
Tim Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andy Smith wrote:
Are reads from a 2 device RAID-1 twice as fast as from a single
md14 : active raid0 sdb13[1] sda13[0]
md13 : active raid1 sdb12[1] sda12[0]
/dev/md14:
Timing buffered disk reads: 272 MB in 3.01 seconds = 90.37 MB/sec
/dev/md13:
