Re: Re: Anaconda doesn't support raid10

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



Feizhou wrote:
Ruslan Sivak wrote:
Feizhou wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Hey look at me! I'm top-posting!!! Nanny-nanny-poo-poo

Come get me Trolls!

Please do not top post. :)

He was probably hinting at me for top posting. Unfortunately, sometimes I write from the blackberry, which only allows top posting. Take it up with RIM.

Hence the smiley.

I know you meant it in a joking way. I'm kinda pissed at RIM though for not letting me reply properly on my blackberry.

SATA drives typically do 60-70MBs, interleaved you
should see 120-140MB/s on sequential. Random IO on SATA
usually sucks too badly to even talk about...

Eh? It cannot be worse than PATA drives now can it?
_______________________________________________

Probably not, but is SATA really much worse then SCSI or SAS? I did some testing on a dell PE 2950 of 750GB SATA's vs SAS and SCSI drives, and the SATA drives seem to be faster at least at first glance. I don't have good numbers from the SCSI tests, but at least for sequantial, I'm getting a better speed off the SATAs.

sequential will be better than SCSI due to the packing on those platters which make up for the lack in rpm. NCQ should even up the random ability of SATA disks versus SCSI drives but that support has only become available lately on Linux and you also need the right hardware (besides the right disks).
How would I know if my system is using NCQ? I think my drives and card should support it.

Russ


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[Index of Archives]     [CentOS]     [CentOS Announce]     [CentOS Development]     [CentOS ARM Devel]     [CentOS Docs]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Carrier Grade Linux]     [Linux Media]     [Asterisk]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Xorg]     [Linux USB]
  Powered by Linux