From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lars Marowsky-Bree Subject: Re: XP RAID vs md Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:27:31 +0200 Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030402152731.GE7364@marowsky-bree.de> References: <3E8AD562.6090707@webmail.co.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E8AD562.6090707@webmail.co.za> To: Vladimir Milovanovic , raid-list List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 2003-04-02T14:19:46, Vladimir Milovanovic said: > Wow... I hope that one of the maintainers will comment on this, I did= n't=20 > even know that XP had a sw RAID implementation. Up to 100% more on re= ad=20 > and 60% more on write is quite a significant margin. Is there anythin= g=20 > in favour of the md driver if this is true? I've not really checked these numbers yet, so take the following with a= grain of salt. However, with RAID1 for example, I got approximately twice the read spe= ed and 95% of the write speed (compared to just using a single disk). I have a really hard time imagining a 100% read boost; that would simpl= y exceed disk bandwidth, and 60% writes - how should that work? I'm not claiming md is perfect or the fastest imaginable solution, but = it is rather close to theoretical disk bandwidth. A two digit percentage perf= ormance improvement just can't be done. Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Br=E9e --=20 SuSE Labs - Research & Development, SuSE Linux AG =20 "If anything can go wrong, it will." "Chance favors the prepared (mind)= =2E" -- Capt. Edward A. Murphy -- Louis Pasteur - 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