From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Billy Crook Subject: Re: Stupid question regarding RAID-1 access pattern Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:13:55 -0600 Message-ID: References: <4B44EB58.2090400@northarc.com> <20100106213723.GA12318@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100106213723.GA12318@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 15:37, Robin Hill wrote: > I doubt this would help much really. =A0If you're reading sequential = data > then it's pretty much as quick to keep reading as to seek to the next > chunk. Could it hurt [performance]? SSDs will only become more common, and they haven't any seek penalty. -- 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