From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roman Mamedov Subject: Re: SSD + Rust as raid1 Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 16:22:35 +0600 Message-ID: <20130608162235.7ca32f4d@natsu> References: <51A7C36F.4030605@timedicer.co.uk> <20130531133018.77cd9285@natsu> <51A85574.8080709@timedicer.co.uk> <20130531135434.5b6bdddb@natsu> <51A864E1.9070903@timedicer.co.uk> <51ADA1AF.6040405@timedicer.co.uk> <51B25D7C.4090403@tmr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/2Gvy+H.4MZ7GEDeqk+_xZNP"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51B25D7C.4090403@tmr.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Bill Davidsen Cc: Dominic Raferd , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_/2Gvy+H.4MZ7GEDeqk+_xZNP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 18:23:56 -0400 Bill Davidsen wrote: > > If I have to have a bitmap file, it is=20 > > presumably faster to have a larger chunk size >=20 > If you want performance I think a too big chunk size will hurt you. You are confusing the general array chunk sizes, and the bitmap chunk size.= In the latter, a larger size will universally give better performance (up to s= ome value, where it will perhaps start to flat out). --=20 With respect, Roman --Sig_/2Gvy+H.4MZ7GEDeqk+_xZNP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlGzBesACgkQTLKSvz+PZwjThQCeNf1evF1yNaro6L0imFS++iUh Ur0AoI1bJlxEk+sN2+nTLNa7Wl04igxv =5cJt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/2Gvy+H.4MZ7GEDeqk+_xZNP--