From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: 2x6 or 3x4 raid10 arrays ? Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:07:59 -0500 Message-ID: <47C9B79F.1050906@tmr.com> References: <1204195554.16924.16.camel@franck-gusty> <20080228192500.4d9110d9@absurd> <20080228215339.6674f29d@absurd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080228215339.6674f29d@absurd> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Janek Kozicki Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Janek Kozicki wrote: > Janek Kozicki said: (by the date of Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:25:00 +0100) > > sorry about replying to myself. > > * two 6 disks raid10 arrays : theoretical max speed 6 times single disc > * three 4 disks raid10 arrays : theoretical max speed 4 times single disc > * single raid10 far=2 : theoretical max speed 12 times single disc (!) > > isn't that true? > > True for throughput, not for seek. Also, what I have seen and read indicates that smaller chunks help a lot for database with lots of seeks. -- 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