From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: raid10: unfair disk load? Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:18:49 -0500 Message-ID: <477165A9.6040802@tmr.com> References: <476BA4FD.6080401@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <476BA942.40406@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <20071221174902.6fc02c4e@absurd> <476C2869.1080903@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <20071222130559.68b773fd@absurd> <476E5634.4050607@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <476EB577.5090708@sauce.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <476EB577.5090708@sauce.co.nz> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Richard Scobie Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, jnelson-linux-raid@jamponi.net List-Id: linux-raid.ids Richard Scobie wrote: > Jon Nelson wrote: > >> My own tests on identical hardware (same mobo, disks, partitions, >> everything) and same software, with the only difference being how >> mdadm is invoked (the only changes here being level and possibly >> layout) show that raid0 is about 15% faster on reads than the very >> fast raid10, f2 layout. raid10,f2 is approx. 50% of the write speed of >> raid0. This more or less matches my testing. > > Have you tested a stacked RAID 10 made up of 2 drive RAID1 arrays, > striped together into a RAID0. That is not raid10, that's raid1+0. See man md. > > I have found this configuration to offer very good performance, at the > cost of slightly more complexity. It does, raid0 can be striped over many configurations, raid[156] being most common. -- Bill Davidsen "Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark