Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:54:24 -0600 (MDT) From: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@narnia.plutotech.com> To: shimon@simon-shapiro.org Cc: scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RAID performance/benchmarking Message-ID: <199804150054.SAA24735@narnia.plutotech.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.980414165246.shimon@simon-shapiro.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <XFMail.980414165246.shimon@simon-shapiro.org> you wrote: > > Depends on array size, type of controller, amount of cache, type of access. > RAID arrays are not a good benefit for sequential access. This really depends. For Pluto's application, using RAID 3 not only gives us reliability, but also the ability to have one of the drives in a stripe "return late", but still maintain low latency by replacing the data through parity reconstruction. Since we are a realtime system where being even a little late is unacceptable, the use of RAID gives us a big advantage. Almost all of our accesses are sequential. -- Justin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199804150054.SAA24735>