From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maarten van den Berg Subject: Re: RAID1 VS RAID5 Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:16:16 +0100 Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <200310261716.17030.maarten@vbvb.nl> References: <1067179519.1222.107.camel@cala> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1067179519.1222.107.camel@cala> To: Mario Giammarco , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Sunday 26 October 2003 15:45, Mario Giammarco wrote: > Hello, > My problem is: I have seen that RAID1 code does not interleave reads so > it does not improve performance very much putting two hard disks. After thinking about your question for a minute, I think I found the obvious reason for that. Raid1 being a mirror set it does not make sense to interleave anything. Either disk1 reads it first or disk2 reads it first. Once you get the data from either disk, then you're done; no need to wait for the second disk (giving you the identical datablock). Interleaving only makes sense with other raid levels, but not with level 1. Maarten -- Yes of course I'm sure it's the red cable. I guarante[^%!/+)F#0c|'NO CARRIER