On 02/04/2012 04:15, Jack Wang wrote:
2012/4/1 John Robinson <john.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:john.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
[...]
Now that you've suggested that, it occurs to me that for an
application like this, the OP might be better doing his multiple
slow streams to a spool folder on SSD, and copying over to the big
array of spinning rust when each stream completes. 200 streams of
500MB is 100GB of data, so a pair of slightly larger SSDs in RAID1
(or RAID10, to balance the reads coming off) would do nicely as a
spool area.
This might also be a good application for bcache, FlashCache or
whatever.
Using bcache/flashcache is what I'm considering, does above
configuration option still needed?
Using a pair of SSDs? I think if you're adding a cache to a redundant
array, you ought to make the cache redundant too.
Using RAID10 to balance reads coming off the redundant pair of SSDs?
That would depend on how bcache or flashcache is written; if it's
single-threaded or does large copies from cache to the backing, then
yes, you may see better performance or at least more balanced usage of
the two SSDs, and surely won't see worse performance.
Cheers,
John.
--
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
