Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 10:28:56 +1000 From: Emil Mikulic <emikulic@gmail.com> To: Olivier Smedts <olivier@gid0.org> Cc: "Derek \(freebsd lists\)" <482254ac@razorfever.net>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: siis/atacam/ata/gmirror 8.0-BETA3 disk performance Message-ID: <20090903002856.GC17538@dmr.ath.cx> In-Reply-To: <367b2c980909020736i60b64563xc4fec6d11e3dae2b@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A9E5F34.2090700@razorfever.net> <20090902141138.GA15045@dmr.ath.cx> <367b2c980909020736i60b64563xc4fec6d11e3dae2b@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 04:36:29PM +0200, Olivier Smedts wrote: > 2009/9/2 Emil Mikulic <emikulic@gmail.com>: > > Stripe will give you higher throughput. > > Mirror will give you more random seeks per second. > > And higher read throughput. If you've got two streaming reads in parallel, and get lucky with disk scheduling, you can get higher aggregate throughput. But for the single linear scan that Derek and I have been benchmarking, I don't see how mirror would give a higher read throughput. Both disks are spinning at the same speed and their heads are in the same positions. --Emil
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090903002856.GC17538>