From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 21 16:11:04 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE9AE16A400; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:11:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from etc@fluffles.net) Received: from auriate.fluffles.net (cust.95.160.adsl.cistron.nl [195.64.95.160]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A626013C480; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:11:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from etc@fluffles.net) Received: from 195-241-125-45.dsl.ip.tiscali.nl ([195.241.125.45] helo=[10.0.0.18]) by auriate.fluffles.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.66 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1I1OmF-000Bki-Lr; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:40:55 +0200 Message-ID: <467A9C0F.7040607@fluffles.net> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:41:03 +0200 From: Fluffles User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Windows/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Linimon References: <200706210120.l5L1KknB033905@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200706210120.l5L1KknB033905@freefall.freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/113885: [geom] [patch] improved gmirror balance algorithm X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:11:05 -0000 Mark Linimon wrote: > Old Synopsis: improved gmirror balance algorithm > New Synopsis: [geom] [patch] improved gmirror balance algorithm > > Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-geom > Responsible-Changed-By: linimon > Responsible-Changed-When: Thu Jun 21 01:18:50 UTC 2007 > Responsible-Changed-Why: > Over to maintainer(s). > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=113885 > This improvement sounds really nice and i would be happy to test it. One question though: in RAID1 it is theoretically possible to get the same sequential read speed as in RAID0. Does this patch fix this as well? Ofcourse more IOps is very nice for multiuser servers, but more (sequential) MB/s is nice too for NAS purposes etc. Thanks! - Veronica