On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Robin Hill <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 04:26:32PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> What I'm aiming at is that offset might better fit into erase blocks, >> cause less internal fragmentation on the disk and give better wear >> leveling. Might improve speed and lifetime. But that is just a >> thought. Maybe test and do ask Intel (or other vendors) about it. >> > I very much doubt this will make any difference. With SSDs you have to > throw out any preconceptions of internal layout you may have. You have > absolutely no idea (or control of) where two consecutive blocks will > actually get written. Fragmentation and seek time are thus irrelevant > (or uncontrollable anyway). > > I don't see how any RAID-10 layout would perform better than another > with SSDs, unless there's internal optimisations/constraints which > affect sequential reading from multiple devices. I'm not aware of any > though - RAID-10 n2 may be the same layout as RAID-1 but it's an > entirely separate piece of code. Don't forget that RAID-1 also does balanced reads. -- Chris Chen <muffaleta@xxxxxxxxx> "The fact that yours is better than anyone else's is not a guarantee that it's any good." -- Seen on a wall -- 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
