From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: migrating from RAID5 to RAID10 Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:59:15 -0400 Message-ID: <4C198173.6050305@tmr.com> References: <20100609151132.GA10082@libra.CS.Berkeley.EDU> <20100611005231.401529c0@natsu> <20100610195851.GA8408@libra.CS.Berkeley.EDU> <4C18F39E.8010600@tmr.com> <20100616183031.GB2513@scorpio.mgarnold.homelinux.org> <20100616201523.GA24349@libra.CS.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100616201523.GA24349@libra.CS.Berkeley.EDU> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Gilad Arnold Cc: Roman Mamedov , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Gilad Arnold wrote: > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:30:31AM -0700, Gilad Arnold wrote: > >> Thanks for the thorough evaluation and thoughtful advice! Much >> appreciated. I agree it makes a lot more sense and I will follow your >> suggested procedure (when I get to purchase the extra drive ;-) ) >> > > PS, a related question: some measurements posted on the web suggest that > RAID10 in f2 mode is far superior to n2 (the default?) when it comes to > reading performance, and only mildly inferior when writing. I tend to > go with f2, unless someone tells me it's a bad idea. > > It is a GREAT idea, and will produce much better sustained read performance. -- Bill Davidsen "We can't solve today's problems by using the same thinking we used in creating them." - Einstein