From owner-freebsd-current Sat Jan 31 14:26:08 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA16930 for current-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 14:26:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from tor-adm1.nbc.netcom.ca (taob@tor-adm1.nbc.netcom.ca [207.181.89.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA16914 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 14:26:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from taob@tor-adm1.nbc.netcom.ca) Received: (from taob@localhost) by tor-adm1.nbc.netcom.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA15775; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 17:25:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 17:25:45 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Tao X-Sender: taob@tor-adm1 To: Karl Denninger cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RAID controllers - folks, check this thing out In-Reply-To: <19980131155527.19192@mcs.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG X-To-Unsubscribe: mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org "unsubscribe current" On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Karl Denninger wrote: > > RAID 5, due to the way it stripes parity across the volumes, has a > "sweet spot" in performance at 5 spindles. What "way" is that? On a given stripe, one drive provides the parity block, the choice of drive staggered across consecutive stripes. There may be an issue with small, sequential writes on a RAID 5 set with a large number of drives, but I can't think of any reason why five drives should be magical. -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob@netcom.ca) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"