From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kasper Sandberg Subject: Re: raid10 layout for 2xSSDs Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:02:53 +0100 Message-ID: <1258405373.31633.49.camel@localhost> References: <1258381745.31633.35.camel@localhost> <7bc80d500911160808o4ca4d335gdeeb50fff61b2149@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <7bc80d500911160808o4ca4d335gdeeb50fff61b2149@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Christopher Chen Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 08:08 -0800, Christopher Chen wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Kasper Sandberg wrote: > > Hello. > > > > I've been wanting to create a raid10 array of two SSDs, and I am > > currently considering the layout. > > > > As i understand it, near layout is similar to raid1, and will only > > provide a speedup if theres 2 reads at the same time, not a single > > sequential read. > > > > so the choice is really between far and offset. As i see it, the > > difference is, that offset tries to reduce the seeking for writing > > compared to far, but that if you dont consider the seeking penalty, > > average sequential write speed across the entire array should be roughly > > the same with offset and far, with offset perhaps being a tad more > > "stable", is this a correct assumption? if it is, that would mean offset > > provides a higher "garantueed" speed than far, but with a lower maximum > > speed. > > Do you plan to have more than two devices in the array? Raid 10 isn't no > magic. If you don't have more than do devices, I suppose your seek > time might be half for reads (and higher for writes), but you won't be > able to do any striping. > > I'm a bit confused as to the number of people popping in recently > wanting to run raid 10 on two disk "arrays". to get the doubled singlestream sequential read performance.. > > cc >