| To: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS and RAID5 |
| From: | Andrew Klaassen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:17:29 -0400 |
| In-reply-to: | <200106181655.QAA11308@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 02:55:26AM +1000 |
| Mail-followup-to: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <20010618091334.A2209@xxxxxxxxxxx> <200106181655.QAA11308@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2i |
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 02:55:26AM +1000, Robin Humble wrote: > Contrary to popular belief, using both master and slave only > gets you a ~5% performance hit. (?)! That would be very, very good news. Has anybody else tried this? Have you load tested the machines and seen smooth performance degradation, no nasty bottlenecks (or whatever it is that is supposed to happen when master and slave are both used in an array)? (Am I asking these question on the wrong forum? Apologies...) Andrew Klaassen |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | efs support in SGI built kernels, Mike Sklar |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | TAKE - fix for compiling xfs with gcc 3.0, Steve Lord |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS and RAID5, Robin Humble |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS and RAID5, Robin Humble |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |