From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (ext-mx02.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.110.6]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5SIuSV8013625 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:56:28 -0400 Received: from sv4-mta-52b.us.emailfiltering.com (sv4-mta-52b.emailfiltering.com [208.87.137.233]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5SIuHXr024199 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:56:18 -0400 Received: from smtp.media-brokers.com ([70.43.81.99]) by sv4-mta-52b.us.emailfiltering.com with emfmta (version 4.5.0.261) vanilla id 570853242 for linux-lvm@redhat.com; b604fcabe8fd5b2c; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:56:17 -0700 Received: from [192.168.1.110] (sjester.atl.media-brokers.com [192.168.1.110]) by smtp.media-brokers.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D3BB2551A23 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:56:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C28F050.9090703@Media-Brokers.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:56:16 -0400 From: Charles Marcus MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4BF5A883.7060503@tlinx.org> <20100521051021.GA1412@maude.comedia.it> <4BF62CBF.3070702@tlinx.org> <20100522072321.GB12294@maude.comedia.it> <4BFEA099.9020005@redhat.com> <4C1EE9ED.9080201@tlinx.org> <25E3A700-B320-4F84-8694-4DE5AD4D0A83@redhat.com> <4C246A7A.50202@tlinx.org> In-Reply-To: <4C246A7A.50202@tlinx.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] RAID chunk size & LVM 'offset' affecting RAID stripe alignment Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: linux-lvm@redhat.com On 2010-06-25 4:36 AM, Linda A. Walsh wrote: > Doug Ledford wrote: >> Correction: all reads benefit from larger chunks now a days. The only >> reason to use smaller chunks in the past was to try and get all of >> your drives streaming data to you simultaneously, which effectively >> made the total aggregate throughput of those reads equal to the >> throughput of one data disk times the number of data disks in the >> array. With modern drives able to put out 100MB/s sustained by >> themselves, we don't really need to do this any more, .... > I would regard 100MB/s as moderately slow. For files in my > server cache, my Win7 machine reads @ 110MB/s over the network, My understanding is Gigabit ethernet is only capable of topping out at about 30MB/s, so, I'm curious what kind of network you have? 10GBe? Fiber? -- Best regards, Charles