near/offset i think it´s the same (near) speed i´m checking this: https://raid.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Performance and some tests i did 2011/5/3 Keld Jørn Simonsen <keld@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 04:52:07PM -0300, Roberto Spadim wrote: >> 2011/5/3 Morad, Steve <morad@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> > I have a few questions about volume mirroring performance implications. >> > >> >> > 2. Similarly, would a RAID10 configuration give me the same (or better) read behavior across these same disks, while providing twice the storage capacity of the above configuration? > > RAID10 and RAID1 gives the same storage capacity with the same disks. > > Linux MD RAID10 is actually just another way of doing raid1-like > layouts. > > >> in md world >> raid1+ raid0 != raid10 >> >> raid10 can use layouts >> raid1 can?t >> >> raid10 have diferent read_balance algorithms than raid1 >> raid10 with far layout is better optimized for sequencial read (it?s >> like raid0 stripe) >> raid10 with near/offset layoute are better optimized for multthread > > Hmm, raid10 near, offset and far are about the same for multithread, > according to several benchmarks. Actually the far layout has significant > better random read performance than the near layout in some thests, > about 25 % better speed, and about 100 % bettter speed than raid1. > > 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 > -- Roberto Spadim Spadim Technology / SPAEmpresarial -- 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
