Michał Przyłuski wrote: > > I'm afraid that might be incorrect. > > Let's assume we want to write 100MB of data onto a 4 drive raid6. > Let's divide 100MB of data into two parts, say A and B, each 50MB big. > Writing the data on the raid, would mean writing: > * A on disk1 > * B on disk2 > * XOR(A,B) on disk3 > * Q(A,B) on disk4 > That is actually assuming 50MB chunk, and whole chunk writes, etc. > Each of written portions would have been 50MB in size. That sounds > reasonable to me, as with 2 data disks, only half of data has to be > written on each. The fact that disks are really striped with data, XOR > and Q doesn't change the image in terms of amount written. > > I do hope I had understood the situation correctly, but I'll be ever > happy to be proved wrong. > Ah, sorry, yes you're of course right. I was thinking about latency, not throughput, for some idiotic reason. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- 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
