xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Q: Filesystem block sizes available?

To: stimits@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Q: Filesystem block sizes available?
From: Bryan-TheBS-Smith <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 11:59:19 -0500
Cc: XFS Mailing list <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: SmithConcepts/AbsoluteValueSystems
References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0111131556430.1160-100000@mustard.heime.net> <3BF14697.F90270CD@idcomm.com> <20011113101659.E9701@sgi.com> <3BF14F65.CD7BFCED@idcomm.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
"D. Stimits" wrote:
> I do not refer to logical append of disks as RAID0. RAID0 should be
> stripped, and very good performance, splitting the load over all the
> disks evenly (with no redundancy if anything fails). RAID5 will probably
> make write performance worse, and read performance much better. RAID
> definitions seem to have all kinds of different terminology depending on
> who you talk to, but the linux software RAID docs I've seen always refer
> to RAID0 as striped and high performance, not as merely a logical
> append.

Also note that some RAID-1 controllers don't do load balancing
(especially those "trick BIOS" ones that are really doing it in
software), and aren't any faster.  Even many software RAID-1
implementations are limited in what they can do because it is done at
the CPU instead of at the ASIC or microcontroller.  3Ware seems to have
best RAID-1 implementation in this case (see StorageReview.COM for
tests).

-- TheBS

-- 
Bryan "TheBS" Smith    mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx   chat:thebs413
Engineer  AbsoluteValue Systems, Inc.  http://www.linux-wlan.org
President     SmithConcepts, Inc.   http://www.SmithConcepts.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
"The [US] Constitution guarantees you Free, not Fair.  'Fair' is
a socialist concept." -- Shawn McMahon


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>