From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264594AbTLQWr4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:47:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264595AbTLQWr4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:47:56 -0500 Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:52749 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264594AbTLQWry (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:47:54 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: gatekeeper.tmr.com!davidsen From: davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) Newsgroups: mail.linux-kernel Subject: Re: raid0 slower than devices it is assembled of? Date: 17 Dec 2003 22:36:23 GMT Organization: TMR Associates, Schenectady NY Message-ID: References: <20031217192244.GB12121@mail.shareable.org> X-Trace: gatekeeper.tmr.com 1071700583 8223 192.168.12.62 (17 Dec 2003 22:36:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@tmr.com Originator: davidsen@gatekeeper.tmr.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article , Linus Torvalds wrote: | Let's say that you are striping four disks, with 32kB blocking. Not | an unreasonable setup. Let me drop one of my pet complaints here, that the install programs of many (most? all?) commercial releases don't give you a stripe size menu to let the user make a decision based on intended use. Instead the program uses the "one size fits all" approach and picks a size. As you say here it's not unreasonable in terms of being typical, but for most people it such for performance. As you noted elsewhere big stripes are almost always better, and a default of 256k or so would work better for most people. Sorry, related flamage, but your comments welcome, since this does affect the perception of performance of the o/s. -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.