Am 03.12.22 um 06:45 schrieb David T-G:
Reindl, et al -- ...and then Reindl Harald said... % % Am 28.11.22 um 15:46 schrieb David T-G: % > I don't at this time have a device free to plug in locally to back up the % > volume to destroy and rebuild as linear, so that will have to wait. When % > I do get that chance, though, will that help me get to the awesome goal % > of actually INCREASING performance by including a RAID0 layer? % % stacking layers over layers will *never* increase performance - a pure RAID0 % will but if one disk is dead all is lost True, and we definitely don't want that.
but you do when i read your posts
% additional RAID0 on top or below another RAID won't help I could believe that, because what I don't know about RAID would fill a book, but I thought that the idea of RAID10 speeding up access was that the first half of the data is on the FIRST half of the /first/ disk and the second half of the data is on the FIRST half of the /second/ disk and so the heads only move over half the disk for reads.
common sense: in the moment you have already reads and span a RAID0 over them the aceess pattern is far waway from first and second disk
common sense: you wrote you are dealing mostly with small files - they don't gain from striping because they are typically not striped at all
% your main problem starts by slicing your drives in dozens of partitions and % "the idea being that each piece of which should take less time to rebuild if % something fails" [snip] Whoops! You're on the wrong machine. This one mirrors two disks; that one is the one that has a bunch.
well, when you mix different machines into the same thread i am out here
