Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 23:17:36 -0700 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@plutotech.com> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@plutotech.com>, "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@plutotech.com>, bill@bilver.magicnet.net, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RAID1 Software vs Hardware Message-ID: <199811090624.XAA25317@pluto.plutotech.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 09 Nov 1998 14:26:01 %2B1030." <19981109142601.F499@freebie.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>On Sunday, 8 November 1998 at 0:17:36 -0700, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: >>>> RAID 3 is still used, and is still useful. All of Pluto's products (see >>>> http://www.plutotech.com) use RAID 3. It works quite well for video data. >>> >>> I suppose it gives you good throughput. But how do you handle the I/O >>> load? Are you effectively delivering a single video stream? >> >> RAID 3 is ideal when your data requests are always a multiple of the strip >> size. > >I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. In my book, RAID-3 >is a RAID-4 with a stripe size of 1 byte. How do you define it? RAID-3 confines parity to 1 member of the array. The size of the stripe is not a part of the specification. In the case of Pluto products, we usually use a stripe size of 1MB which implies a per-unit access of 1MB/N-1 (N being number of members in the RAID group). >Greg -- Justin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811090624.XAA25317>