From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: thomas62186218@aol.com Subject: Re: Benchmarks: Linux Kernel RAID vs a Hardware RAID setup Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:08:57 -0400 Message-ID: <8CAB57DC49B9CE4-C68-3155@WEBMAIL-NG09.sysops.aol.com> References: <1216130769.5633.318.camel@sam.localdomain> <487CC660.9030004@ziu.info> <1216179392.5633.348.camel@sam.localdomain> <487D7139.5050302@sauce.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <487D7139.5050302@sauce.co.nz> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: richard@sauce.co.nz, monkeyiq@users.sourceforge.net Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Richard, Are you sure that the patch you reference below is actually in 2.6.26?=20 I checked the CHANGELOG and couldn't find anything about get priority=20 stripe in there (maybe its called something else now)? Thanks -Thomas -----Original Message----- =46rom: Richard Scobie To: Ben Martin Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org Sent: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 8:55 pm Subject: Re: Benchmarks: Linux Kernel RAID vs a Hardware RAID setup Ben Martin wrote:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > I have been meaning to ask for a while, why is the stripe_cache_size=C2= =A0 > set so low by default if it has such an effect on performance? =C2=A0 I can't comment on the above, but looking at this:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://marc.info/?l=3Dlinux-raid&m=3D120668318422034&w=3D2=C2=A0 =C2=A0 with the 2.6.26 release, bumping up the stripe cache should no longer=20 be necessary.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Regards,=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Richard=C2=A0 --=C2=A0 To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid"=20 in=C2=A0 the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org=C2=A0 More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html=C2=A0 -- 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