From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stan Hoeppner Subject: Re: "Missing" RAID devices Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 22:45:56 -0500 Message-ID: <519EE274.5030905@hardwarefreak.com> References: <519B9351.4050708@turmel.org> <519C0B13.3040906@turmel.org> <519D4A15.7020107@hardwarefreak.com> <519D541B.1090508@turmel.org> <519DB04B.5030505@hardwarefreak.com> <20130523083032.GA2579@www5.open-std.org> Reply-To: stan@hardwarefreak.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130523083032.GA2579@www5.open-std.org> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: keld@keldix.com Cc: Phil Turmel , Linux RAID List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 5/23/2013 3:30 AM, keld@keldix.com wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:59:39AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> You may be tempted to use md/RAID10 of some layout >> to optimize for writes, but you'd gain nothing, and you'd lose some >> performance due to overhead. The partitions you'll be using in this >> case are so small that they easily fit in a single physical disk track, >> thus no head movement is required to seek between sectors, only rotation >> of the platter. ... > I think a raid10,far3 is a good choice for swap, then you will enjoy > RAID0-like reading speed. and good write speed (compared to raid6), > and a chance of live surviving if just one drive keeps functioning. As I mention above, none of the md/RAID10 layouts will yield any added performance benefit for swap partitions. And I state the reason why. If you think about this for a moment you should reach the same conclusion. -- Stan