On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 07:54:55PM +0200, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 01:11:20PM -0700, David Rees wrote: > > 2009/7/30 Keld Jørn Simonsen <keld@xxxxxxxx>: > > > I think raid10,f2 only degrades 10-20 % while raid1 can degrade as much > > > as 50 %. For writing it is about the same, given that you use a file > > > system on top of the raid. > > > > > Random/small reads far: Up to 100% faster > > Actually a bit more, due to that far only uses the fastest half of the > disks. One test shows 132 % faster, which is consistent with theory. > > > Random/small reads near: Up to 100% faster > > One test shows 156 % faster. I meant 56 % faster. So one test (done by myself) shows far to be 132 % faster than single disk, and near to be 56 % faster. Given the behaviour of near and far I believe the tests to be representative of the near/far performance for random reading. 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
