From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: adfas asd Subject: Re: Remote NAS Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 07:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <501250.73276.qm@web38802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20090923091328.GA19193@rap.rap.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090923091328.GA19193@rap.rap.dk> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids --- On Wed, 9/23/09, Keld J=F8rn Simonsen wrote: > There is a setup described at=20 >=20 > http://linux-raid.osdl.org/index.php/Preventing_against_a_failing_dis= k >=20 > You can substitute raid10,o2 for raid10,f2 for the root > partitions etc. >=20 > Anyway, raid10,f2 should be faster than raid10,o2, for at > least reads, > while for writes it is about the same performance given > that you employ > a file system. Thanks keld. I used this procedure, which does about the same thing an= d seems more clear, adapting it to RAID10-o2: http://www.howtoforge.com/software-raid1-grub-boot-debian-etch I could find no performance comparison with far and offset, and knew th= at far improved on reads, so since offset came later inferred that it w= ould have improved writes. No objective data to confirm otherwise. =20 -- 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