linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>
To: Kasper Sandberg <postmaster@metanurb.dk>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: raid10 layout for 2xSSDs
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:26:32 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <878we61oev.fsf@frosties.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1258381745.31633.35.camel@localhost> (Kasper Sandberg's message of "Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:29:05 +0100")

Kasper Sandberg <postmaster@metanurb.dk> writes:

> Hello.
>
> I've been wanting to create a raid10 array of two SSDs, and I am
> currently considering the layout.
>
> As i understand it, near layout is similar to raid1, and will only
> provide a speedup if theres 2 reads at the same time, not a single
> sequential read.
>
> so the choice is really between far and offset. As i see it, the
> difference is, that offset tries to reduce the seeking for writing
> compared to far, but that if you dont consider the seeking penalty,
> average sequential write speed across the entire array should be roughly
> the same with offset and far, with offset perhaps being a tad more
> "stable", is this a correct assumption? if it is, that would mean offset
> provides a higher "garantueed" speed than far, but with a lower maximum
> speed.
>
> mvh.
> Kasper Sandberg

Doesn't offset have the copies of each stripe right next to each other
(just rotated). So writing one stripe would actualy write a 2 block
continous chunk per device.

With far copies the stripes are far from each other and you get 2
seperate continious chunks per device.

What I'm aiming at is that offset might better fit into erase blocks,
cause less internal fragmentation on the disk and give better wear
leveling. Might improve speed and lifetime. But that is just a
thought. Maybe test and do ask Intel (or other vendors) about it.

MfG
        Goswin

  reply	other threads:[~2009-11-16 15:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-11-16 14:29 raid10 layout for 2xSSDs Kasper Sandberg
2009-11-16 15:26 ` Goswin von Brederlow [this message]
2009-11-16 16:13   ` Keld Jørn Simonsen
2009-11-17  4:34     ` Goswin von Brederlow
2009-11-17 15:05       ` Kasper Sandberg
2009-11-16 16:31   ` Robin Hill
2009-11-16 16:38     ` Christopher Chen
2009-11-16 16:52       ` Robin Hill
2009-11-17  4:36     ` Goswin von Brederlow
2009-11-16 16:08 ` Christopher Chen
2009-11-16 21:02   ` Kasper Sandberg
2009-11-16 21:19     ` Majed B.
2009-11-16 21:33       ` Kasper Sandberg
2009-11-17  4:46   ` Goswin von Brederlow

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=878we61oev.fsf@frosties.localdomain \
    --to=goswin-v-b@web.de \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=postmaster@metanurb.dk \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).