From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Robinson Subject: Re: Performance question, RAID5 Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:37:42 +0000 Message-ID: <4D47F086.9000308@anonymous.org.uk> References: <20110130035352.1d72e8d1@natsu> <20110130015231.GA1435@www2.open-std.org> <20110130055616.GA13022@www2.open-std.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: =?UTF-8?B?TWF0aGlhcyBCdXLDqW4=?= Cc: Linux-RAID List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 30/01/2011 12:12, Mathias Bur=C3=A9n wrote: [...] > Ah, good point. The sda is a 60GB SSD, I should definitely move that > to the PCI-E card, as it doesn't do heavy IO (just small random r/w). > Then i can have 4 RAID HDDs on the onboard ctrl, and 2 on the PCI-E > shared with the SSD. If the SSD is idle then I should get ideal > throughputs. Hmm, if you have an SSD, you might look at using bcache to speed up=20 write access to your array. On the other hand, with only one SSD you=20 potentially lose redundancy - do SSDs crash and burn like hard drives d= o? If the SSD is only being used as a boot/OS drive - so near idle in=20 normal use - I'd swap it for a cheap small laptop hard drive and find=20 somewhere else to put the SSD to better use. Cheers, John. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html