Re: In this partition scheme, grub does not find md information?

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>>> According to man md(4), the o2 is likely to offer the best 
>>> combination of read and write performance. Why would you consider f2 
>>> instead?
>>>
>> f2 is faster for read, most systems spend more time reading than 
>> writing.
>
> According to md(4), offset "should give similar read characteristics 
> to 'far' if a suitably large chunk size is used, but without as much 
> seeking for writes."
>
> Is the man page not correct, conditionally true, or simply not 
> understood by me (most likely case)?
>
> I wonder what "suitably large" is...
>
My personal experience is that as chunk gets larger random write gets 
slower, sequential gets faster. I don't have numbers any more, but 
20-30% is sort of the limit of what I saw for any chunk size I consider 
reasonable. f2 is faster for sequential reading, tune your system to 
annoy you least. ;-)

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  "Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
  be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark