From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 27 23:22:46 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29F1316A4CE for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:22:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pi.codefab.com (pi.codefab.com [199.103.21.227]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6BEA43D45 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:22:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pi.codefab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D49D5F27; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:22:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from pi.codefab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pi.codefab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 71600-08; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:22:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (pool-68-160-236-186.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.160.236.186]) by pi.codefab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4BD5EF0; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:22:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <41F9779E.9030403@mac.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:22:06 -0500 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chad Morland References: <8ca9329050127121428870c21@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8ca9329050127121428870c21@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at codefab.com cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RAID1, a failed disk and performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:22:46 -0000 Chad Morland wrote: > What happens in terms of performance when a drive in a RAID1 system > fails? Will disk access be slower because it attempts to read/write to > a failed disk or will performance be faster because it doesn't need to > do half the work it usually does? Read access will become slower. Write access will become faster. -- -Chuck