From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brown Subject: Re: high throughput storage server? Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:19:21 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4D5EFDD6.1020504@hardwarefreak.com> <4D62DE55.8040705@hardwarefreak.com> <4D63BC6D.8010209@hardwarefreak.com> <4D64A082.9000601@hardwarefreak.com> <4D6518ED.1080908@anonymous.org.uk> <4D6594D7.7020609@hardwarefreak.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4D6594D7.7020609@hardwarefreak.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 24/02/2011 00:14, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > David Brown put forth on 2/23/2011 9:15 AM: > >> Basically you are comparing a 4-drive RAID-6 to a 4-drive RAID-10. I >> think the RAID-10 will be faster for streamed reads, and a lot faster > > In this 4 drive configuration, RAID6 might be ever so slightly faster in > read performance, but RAID10 will very likely be faster in every other > category, to include degraded performance and rebuild time. I can't say > definitively as I've not actually tested these setups head to head. > >> for small writes. You get improved safety in that you still have a >> one-drive redundancy after a drive has failed, but you pay for it in >> longer and more demanding rebuilds. > > Just to be clear, you're saying the RAID6 rebuilds are longer and more > demanding than RAID10. To state the opposite would be incorrect. > Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.