From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stan Hoeppner Subject: Re: What's the typical RAID10 setup? Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 21:05:36 -0600 Message-ID: <4D4A1B80.2090203@hardwarefreak.com> References: <4D4883A3.6030605@hardwarefreak.com> <20110202092508.GA18517@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> <20110202194456.GA15080@www2.open-std.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Roberto Spadim Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Keld_J=F8rn_Simonsen?= , Jon Nelson , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Roberto Spadim put forth on 2/2/2011 2:28 PM: > i don=B4t think, since head, is just for hard disk (rotational) not f= or > solid state disks, let=B4s not talk about ssd, just hard disk? a raid > with 5000rpm and 10000rpm disk, we will have better i/o read with Anyone who would mix drives of such disparate spindle speeds within the= same array is not concerned with performance. Anyone who has read enough to= create their first array knows better than to do this. Why waste effort to optimize such a horrible design decision? > 10000rpm ? we don=B4t know the model of i/o for that device, but > probally will be faster, but when it=B4s busy we could use 5000rpm... > that=B4s the point, just closest head don=B4t help, we need know what= =B4s > the queue (list of i/o being processed) and the time to read the > current i/o This is just silly. --=20 Stan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html