Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:02:54 -0400 From: Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: fandino@ng.fadesa.es Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3b7and poor ata performance Message-ID: <7EDDC9D6-2768-11D9-A6B1-003065ABFD92@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <417E71BB.1000508@ng.fadesa.es> References: <14479.1098695558@critter.freebsd.dk> <417D25E8.6080804@ng.fadesa.es> <200410251928.01536.victor@alf.dyndns.ws> <200410251837.58257.Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com> <417D3F12.20302@DeepCore.dk> <417D40A1.9030802@ng.fadesa.es> <417D45F1.9090504@freebsd.org> <77F3FD4D-26BE-11D9-9A2F-003065ABFD92@mac.com> <417E71BB.1000508@ng.fadesa.es>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Oct 26, 2004, at 11:48 AM, fandino wrote: > Charles Swiger wrote: >> Disagree. Why else would you use RAID-0 striping? > > speed? Certainly, we are in agreement that the main purpose of RAID-0 is to improve performance. >> [ If you simply want to create a logical volume bigger than the size >> of a physical drive, you can use concatenation instead. ] > > because it doesn't split the load over disks and you get busy disks > and idle disks. Also true, which is why concatenations aren't commonly used, whereas striping is. [ The reason why I mentioned it at all is because creating a larger logical volume than what can fit on a physical drive is a common secondary purpose for RAID-0 modes. For some people, it might even be a primary purpose. ] -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7EDDC9D6-2768-11D9-A6B1-003065ABFD92>