Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 04:45:21 -0800 From: soralx@cydem.org To: davidt@yadt.co.uk Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RAID5 on athlon64 machines Message-ID: <200602120445.21139.soralx@cydem.org> In-Reply-To: <20060212122513.GA58153@outcold.yadt.co.uk> References: <200602112334.k1BNYf83084494@gate.bitblocks.com> <200602120127.03988.soralx@cydem.org> <20060212122513.GA58153@outcold.yadt.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, soralx@cydem.org wrote: > [missing attribution] > > > > You compute max data rates by considering the most optimistic > > > scenario, which is large sequetial writes. For *this* > > > situation write rate will be higher than a single disk's. > > > > How can the RAID5 write rate be higher for the whole array if not > > only it needs to write the data to all if its drives, but also > > compute and write a parity block? > > Easy, you can write simultaneously to more than one drive, assuming > the drive was the bottleneck in the first place. Sorry, my mistake. Confused some RAID levels... Of course, with RAID5, the data block will be split (not mirrored) across several drives (plus a parity block will be added). Perhaps the original poster (bitblocks.com!bakul) may want to resend his question? Since he's experiencing performance problems with gvinum, this could very well be a hackers@ question; some more details may be needed, though. I apologize for all the confusion created here. Timestamp: 0x43EF2B47 [SorAlx] http://cydem.org.ua/ ridin' VN1500-B2
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200602120445.21139.soralx>