From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Janek Kozicki <janek_listy@wp.pl>
Subject: Re: RAID5 to RAID6 reshape?
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:26:04 +0100
Message-ID: <20080218062604.05ae4821@szpak>
References: <aebf5d970802161958x17a9da92r25663703dc0df05f@mail.gmail.com>
	<18360.8065.335494.142060@tree.ty.sabi.co.UK>
	<20080217074526.29d3c5c5@hardcode42.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080217074526.29d3c5c5@hardcode42.net>
Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Linux RAID <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: linux-raid.ids

Conway S. Smith said:     (by the date of Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:45:26 -0700)

> Well, I was reading that LVM2 had a 20%-50% performance penalty,

huh? Make a benchmark. Do you really think that anyone would be using
it if there was any penalty bigger than 1-2% ? (random access, r/w).

I have no idea what is the penalty, but I'm totally sure I didn't
notice it.

-- 
Janek Kozicki                                                         |