From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Christensen Subject: Re: RAID-5 streaming read performance Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:03:29 -0400 Message-ID: References: <874qb14btr.fsf@uwo.ca> <1121220487.5552.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87mzorfmdx.fsf@uwo.ca> <1121257494.5504.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87eka2g9dp.fsf@uwo.ca> <1121259126.5504.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87vf3eeqe2.fsf@uwo.ca> <42D5573A.6090801@dgreaves.com> <87r7e23uo5.fsf@uwo.ca> <1121344255.5544.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87br55xogl.fsf@uwo.ca> <1121364003.5544.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: In-reply-to: <1121364003.5544.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: mingz@ele.uri.edu Cc: Linux RAID List-Id: linux-raid.ids [Ming, could you trim quoted material down a bit more, and leave a blank line between quoted material and your new text? Thanks.] Ming Zhang writes: > On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 13:54 -0400, Dan Christensen wrote: >> >> Yes, there will be a seek, or internal drive readahead, so each drive >> will operate at around 75% efficiency. But since that shouldn't >> affect bus/controller traffic, I still would expect to get over >> 100MB/s with my hardware. > > agree. but what if your controller is a bottleneck? u need to have > another card to find out. The controller and/or bus *is* the bottleneck, but I've already shown that I can get 106MB/s through them. Dan