From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261660AbTLPOkm (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:40:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261775AbTLPOkm (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:40:42 -0500 Received: from hermine.idb.hist.no ([158.38.50.15]:13839 "HELO hermine.idb.hist.no") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261660AbTLPOkl (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:40:41 -0500 Message-ID: <3FDF1C03.2020509@aitel.hist.no> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:51:47 +0100 From: Helge Hafting Organization: AITeL, HiST User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031107 Debian/1.5-3 X-Accept-Language: no, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jw schultz CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: raid0 slower than devices it is assembled of? References: <200312151434.54886.adasi@kernel.pl> <20031216040156.GJ12726@pegasys.ws> In-Reply-To: <20031216040156.GJ12726@pegasys.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org jw schultz wrote: > No Linux [R]AID improves sequential performance. How would > reading 65KB from two disks in alternation be faster than > reading continuously from one disk? > Raid-0 is ideally N times faster than a single disk, when you have N disks. Because you can read continuously from N disks instead of from 1, thereby N-doubling the bandwith. Wether the current drivers manages that is of course another story. Helge Hafting