Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
According to man md(4), the o2 is likely to offer the best
combination of read and write performance. Why would you consider f2
instead?
f2 is faster for read, most systems spend more time reading than
writing.
According to md(4), offset "should give similar read characteristics
to 'far' if a suitably large chunk size is used, but without as much
seeking for writes."
Is the man page not correct, conditionally true, or simply not
understood by me (most likely case)?
I wonder what "suitably large" is...
My personal experience is that as chunk gets larger random write gets
slower, sequential gets faster. I don't have numbers any more, but
20-30% is sort of the limit of what I saw for any chunk size I consider
reasonable. f2 is faster for sequential reading, tune your system to
annoy you least. ;-)
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
"Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
