From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lars Marowsky-Bree Subject: Re: RAID1 VS RAID5 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:54:34 +0100 Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20031027095434.GB13640@marowsky-bree.de> References: <1067179519.1222.107.camel@cala> <200310261716.17030.maarten@vbvb.nl> <200310270927.32751.dusty@strike.wu-wien.ac.at> 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: <200310270927.32751.dusty@strike.wu-wien.ac.at> To: Hermann Himmelbauer , maarten van den Berg , Mario Giammarco , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 2003-10-27T09:27:32, Hermann Himmelbauer said: > When reading a file from the RAID1, you could e.g. read the first blo= ck from=20 > the first disk, the second from the second disk, the third from the f= irst=20 > disk and so on. >=20 > This would *theoretically* double the read speed - like with RAID0. =46or pure reads, that may be true. But for writes, the disks have to resynchronize their heads and then you would get a penalty there. It all depends ;-) Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Br=E9e --=20 High Availability & Clustering \ ever tried. ever failed. no matt= er. SUSE Labs | try again. fail again. fail better. Research & Development, SUSE LINUX AG \ -- Samuel Beckett - 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