Re: Faster read performance DURING (?) resync on raid10

["Keld Jørn Simonsen" <keld@dkuug.dk>]

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 01:06:09PM +0200, Daniel Zetterman wrote:
> Sorry guys, the offset is if course as stated near=2, far=1
> 
> Isn't near=2, far=2 better for raid10?
> 

a number of people say that near=1, far=2 is better.
you could try it out and see if there is any difference.

best regards
keld

> 
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Daniel Zetterman
> <daniel.zetterman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm using near=2, far=1, superblock version=00.90.03
> >
> > I'm not sure about offset, but its the default.
> >
> > I wan't to clearify one thing about the data, its not only a problem
> > with encryption over raid, you get the same drop without encryption...
> > but you can remedy it by setting up the readahead, which gives no
> > effect when using encryption.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 4:23 AM, Keld Jørn Simonsen <keld@dkuug.dk> wrote:
> >> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 01:19:50AM +0200, Daniel Zetterman wrote:
> >>> I've done some more tests and here are the results:
> >>>
> >>> # bonnie++ during resync with readahead set to 512 (encrypted raid10)
> >>> kpax,4G,,,77308,21,34585,17,,,82073,33,384.8,1,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> >>
> >> It would be nice to know which layout (near,far,offset)
> >> that you are using for the test. The expected results are quite
> >> dependent on this.
> >>
> >> best regards
> >> keld
> >>
> >
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html