Re: some benchmarks for read-balancing RAID1 (was: Re: Raid0 performance worse than single drive? also was: Re: sw raid 0 - performance problems (old thread; 12 Jan 2000))

[ Sunday, February 13, 2000 ] James Manning wrote: > I'm going to try adding a --numruns flag for tiobench so we can have an > automated facility for averaging over a number of runs. I believe the > dip at 4 threads is real, but it's worth adding anyway :) It'll be part of tiotest 0.23, but atta

Re: some benchmarks for read-balancing RAID1 (was: Re: Raid0 performance worse than single drive? also was: Re: sw raid 0 - performance problems (old thread; 12 Jan 2000))

[ Saturday, February 12, 2000 ] Peter Palfrader aka Weasel wrote: > So, I finally found time to try the new RAID stuff and speed > increased :) Excellent. > I also tried RAID1 with and without the read-balancing patch: > The filesystem was always made with a simple "mke2fs ": -Rstripe= could be

some benchmarks for read-balancing RAID1 (was: Re: Raid0 performance worse than single drive? also was: Re: sw raid 0 - performance problems (old thread; 12 Jan 2000))

On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 02:43:29AM -0500 James Manning wrote: > [ Tuesday, January 11, 2000 ] Peter Palfrader aka Weasel wrote: > > I'm running a plain 2.2.14 but the results are no different than with > > a 2.2.10 or 2.2.12. [the results with raid0 were really poor (20m/s over 2 disks with 20m/s