Sorry guys, the offset is if course as stated near=2, far=1 Isn't near=2, far=2 better for raid10? On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Daniel Zetterman <daniel.zetterman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm using near=2, far=1, superblock version=00.90.03 > > I'm not sure about offset, but its the default. > > I wan't to clearify one thing about the data, its not only a problem > with encryption over raid, you get the same drop without encryption... > but you can remedy it by setting up the readahead, which gives no > effect when using encryption. > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 4:23 AM, Keld Jørn Simonsen <keld@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 01:19:50AM +0200, Daniel Zetterman wrote: >>> I've done some more tests and here are the results: >>> >>> # bonnie++ during resync with readahead set to 512 (encrypted raid10) >>> kpax,4G,,,77308,21,34585,17,,,82073,33,384.8,1,,,,,,,,,,,,, >> >> It would be nice to know which layout (near,far,offset) >> that you are using for the test. The expected results are quite >> dependent on this. >> >> best regards >> keld >> > -- 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
