From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Beolach Subject: Re: RAID5 to RAID6 reshape? Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 05:38:15 -0700 Message-ID: References: <18360.8065.335494.142060@tree.ty.sabi.co.UK> <20080217074526.29d3c5c5@hardcode42.net> <20080218062604.05ae4821@szpak> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080218062604.05ae4821@szpak> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Feb 17, 2008 10:26 PM, Janek Kozicki wrote: > Conway S. Smith said: (by the date of Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:45:26 -0700) > > > Well, I was reading that LVM2 had a 20%-50% performance penalty, > > huh? Make a benchmark. Do you really think that anyone would be using > it if there was any penalty bigger than 1-2% ? (random access, r/w). > > I have no idea what is the penalty, but I'm totally sure I didn't > notice it. > (Oops, replied straight to Janek, rather than the list. Sorry.) I saw those numbers in a few places, the only one I can remember off the top of my head was the Gentoo-Wiki: . Looking at its history, that warning was added back on 23 Dec. 2006, so it could very well be out-of-date. Good to hear you don't notice any performance drop. I think I will try to run some benchmarks. What do you guys recommend using for benchmarking? Plain dd, bonnie++? Conway S. Smith