Hi Roy,
I would be better indeed, but practically, even if it is supposed to request both disks (san arrays) in //, the closest array will almost always be the first to answer unless it is overloaded.
What I'm looking for is the behaviour for writes, as I don't want to deal with failure scenarios in which I could find outdated data on my last remaining mirror leg.
2009/7/28, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <roy@karlsbakk.net>:
On 27. juli. 2009, at 15.56, malahal@us.ibm.com wrote:
It writes in parallel. Reads from a single device (switches on a device
failure only).
Wouldn't it be better to read in parallel, from different places? I've heard some controllers can do this, so that the reading will be somehow like reading from a RAID-0 stripe.
roy
--
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
(+47) 97542685
roy@karlsbakk.net
http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/
--
I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer på norsk.
_______________________________________________
linux-lvm mailing list
linux-lvm@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
_______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
