From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mario Giammarco Subject: Re: RAID1 VS RAID5 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:46:57 +0100 Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1067338017.1282.8.camel@cala> References: <1067179519.1222.107.camel@cala> <20031026165537.GW26480@mea-ext.zmailer.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20031026165537.GW26480@mea-ext.zmailer.org> To: Matti Aarnio Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Il dom, 2003-10-26 alle 17:55, Matti Aarnio ha scritto: > Performance boosting isn't primary goal in RAID schemes involving > data replication. > RAID5 offers a nice performance boosts. > For RAID1 a suitably chosen read-interleave could be used to improve > _large_ file reads, of course. Another strategy is to distribute read > operations to all online disks forming up the RAID1 set with elevators > of their own. > > > Is there a patch to change raid1 behaviour? > > If it feels important, such can be made. > Who will make it? > > In linux 2.6.0 is it better? > > It can be made, if it isn't. So? 2.6.0 have different raid1 code? -- Mario Giammarco.it