Re: RAID 5: low sequential write performance?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2013-06-17 10:45, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Corey Hickey wrote:
> 
>> Is 256 really a reasonable default? Given what I've been seeing, it 
>> appears that 256 is either unreasonably low or I have something else 
>> wrong.
> 
> It's a safe setting for a low memory system. 1 megabyte per drive can 
> probably be handled by most systems.
> 
> It's expected that you know how to tune this yourself, right now. I seem 
> to remember Neil saying something a few years back about it being 
> desireable for the stripe-cache to be auto-tuned depending on size of 
> available RAM, but probably other things was higher priority plus it's not 
> obvious exactly what the settings should be depending on how much RAM you 
> have.

That would seem like a good thing.

Thanks,
Corey
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux