From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stan Hoeppner Subject: Re: high throughput storage server? Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:14:31 -0600 Message-ID: <4D6594D7.7020609@hardwarefreak.com> References: <4D5EFDD6.1020504@hardwarefreak.com> <4D62DE55.8040705@hardwarefreak.com> <4D63BC6D.8010209@hardwarefreak.com> <4D64A082.9000601@hardwarefreak.com> <4D6518ED.1080908@anonymous.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Brown Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids David Brown put forth on 2/23/2011 9:15 AM: > Basically you are comparing a 4-drive RAID-6 to a 4-drive RAID-10. I > think the RAID-10 will be faster for streamed reads, and a lot faster In this 4 drive configuration, RAID6 might be ever so slightly faster in read performance, but RAID10 will very likely be faster in every other category, to include degraded performance and rebuild time. I can't say definitively as I've not actually tested these setups head to head. > for small writes. You get improved safety in that you still have a > one-drive redundancy after a drive has failed, but you pay for it in > longer and more demanding rebuilds. Just to be clear, you're saying the RAID6 rebuilds are longer and more demanding than RAID10. To state the opposite would be incorrect. -- Stan