From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robin Hill Subject: Re: Stupid question regarding RAID-1 access pattern Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 23:10:04 +0000 Message-ID: <20100106231004.GA4351@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> References: <4B44EB58.2090400@northarc.com> <20100106213723.GA12318@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-raid.ids --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 04:13:55PM -0600, Billy Crook wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 15:37, Robin Hill wrote: > > I doubt this would help much really. =A0If you're reading sequential da= ta > > then it's pretty much as quick to keep reading as to seek to the next > > chunk. >=20 > Could it hurt [performance]? SSDs will only become more common, and > they haven't any seek penalty. >=20 Probably not, with SSDs, but we've already got RAID10 which, if I'm not mistaken, does pretty much what you're describing (if not, can you provide some diagrams of what the layout you're thinking of would look like). Cheers, Robin --=20 ___ =20 ( ' } | Robin Hill | / / ) | Little Jim says .... | // !! | "He fallen in de water !!" | --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAktFGEwACgkQShxCyD40xBIK4gCg4KUn+do4l7ay/4OnYocdfIyU 82AAoNCdeOfy8QFqiZBqHVPrJmdnq3wm =KbKy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU--