Mark,
Having a very large chunk size would reduce the performance down close to that
of a single device. Two performance factors to keep in mind: access time, and
throughput. Access time is important for the many small files and accesses
needed, and throughput is needed for large requests. Mixed
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, D. Lance Robinson wrote:
> Try bumping your chunk-size up. I usually use 64. When this number is low,
> you cause more scsi requests to be performed than needed. If really big (
> >=256 ) RAID 0 won't help much.
Richard said in his original message that he's running IDE disk
D. Lance Robinson wrote:
>
> Try bumping your chunk-size up. I usually use 64. When this number is low,
> you cause more scsi requests to be performed than needed. If really big (
> >=256 ) RAID 0 won't help much.
>
What if the chunk size matches ext2fs's group size (i.e. 8M)? This would
give ve
Try bumping your chunk-size up. I usually use 64. When this number is low,
you cause more scsi requests to be performed than needed. If really big (
>=256 ) RAID 0 won't help much.
<>< Lance.
Richard Schroeder wrote:
> Help,
> I have set up RAID-0 on my Linux Redhat 6.0. I am using RAID-0
> (s
The RAID takes a lot of CPU overhead that normal disk access doesn't.
You failed to mention what CPU speed you were running. Also, if you are
running sufficient RAM. I typically don't run on less than a K6-200 with
64MB of RAM. Most of my servers have at least 96MB RAM, my latest server
is running
Richard Schroeder wrote:
>
> Help,
> I have set up RAID-0 on my Linux Redhat 6.0. I am using RAID-0
> (striping) with two IDE disks (each disk on it's own IDE controller).
> No problems in getting it running. However, my tests show I/O
> performance seems to be worse than on a "normal" non-RAID
