From: Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>
To: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Cc: root@chaos.analogic.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: File system compression, not at the block layer
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:45:22 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <408E8012.1080400@techsource.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4089F3DD.3000200@candelatech.com>
Ben Greear wrote:
> Timothy Miller wrote:
>
>>> Wouldn't this pretty much guarantee worst-case latency scenario for
>>> reading, since
>>> on average at least one of your 32 disks is going to require a full
>>> rotation
>>> (and probably a seek) to find it's bit?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Only for the first bit of a block. For large streams of reads, the
>> fifos will keep things going, except for occasionally as drives drift
>> in their relative rotation positions which can cause some delays.
>
>
> So how is that better than using a striping raid that stripes at the
> block level or multi-block level?
>
It's only better for large streaming writes. The FIFOs I'm talking
about above would certainly be smaller than typical RAID0 stripes.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-04-27 15:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-04-23 17:26 File system compression, not at the block layer Timothy Miller
2004-04-23 17:30 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-04-23 17:41 ` Theodore Ts'o
2004-04-23 17:57 ` Jörn Engel
2004-04-23 18:14 ` Timothy Miller
2004-04-23 18:34 ` Paul Jackson
2004-04-23 20:14 ` Joel Jaeggli
2004-04-23 20:34 ` Richard B. Johnson
2004-04-23 20:44 ` Måns Rullgård
2004-04-23 20:59 ` Richard B. Johnson
2004-04-23 21:14 ` Ben Greear
2004-04-23 21:25 ` Timothy Miller
2004-04-24 4:58 ` Ben Greear
2004-04-27 15:45 ` Timothy Miller [this message]
2004-04-23 21:18 ` Timothy Miller
2004-04-24 1:28 ` Horst von Brand
2004-04-24 2:24 ` Tom Vier
2004-04-24 7:36 ` Willy Tarreau
2004-04-24 16:02 ` Eric D. Mudama
2004-04-25 3:05 ` Horst von Brand
2004-04-25 7:29 ` Willy Tarreau
2004-04-25 19:50 ` Eric D. Mudama
2004-04-27 15:43 ` Timothy Miller
2004-04-28 0:29 ` Tom Vier
2004-04-23 21:31 ` Joel Jaeggli
2004-04-23 22:20 ` Ian Stirling
2004-04-23 23:34 ` Paul Jackson
2004-04-27 15:42 ` Timothy Miller
2004-04-27 16:02 ` Jörn Engel
2004-04-24 1:18 ` Horst von Brand
2004-04-26 10:22 ` Jörn Engel
2004-04-23 21:15 ` Timothy Miller
2004-04-23 21:36 ` Joel Jaeggli
2004-04-27 20:34 ` Pavel Machek
2004-04-28 22:57 ` Timothy Miller
2004-04-29 9:46 ` Jörn Engel
2004-04-29 9:52 ` Pavel Machek
2004-04-29 10:09 ` Jörn Engel
2004-04-29 10:19 ` Pavel Machek
2004-04-29 17:17 ` Tim Connors
2004-04-28 1:00 ` David Lang
2004-04-28 10:09 ` Jörn Engel
2004-04-28 10:21 ` Nikita Danilov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=408E8012.1080400@techsource.com \
--to=miller@techsource.com \
--cc=greearb@candelatech.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=root@chaos.analogic.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox