[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: raid0 slower than devices it is assembled of?
In article <>,
Linus Torvalds <> wrote:
| On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Peter Zaitsev wrote:
| >
| > I'm pretty curious about this argument,
| >
| > Practically as RAID5 uses XOR for checksum computation you do not have
| > to read the whole stripe to recompute the checksum.
| Ahh, good point. Ignore my argument - large stripes should work well. Mea
| culpa, I forgot how simple the parity thing is, and that it is "local".
| However, since seeking will be limited by the checksum drive anyway (for
| writing), the advantages of large stripes in trying to keep the disks
| independent aren't as one-sided.

There is no "the" parity drive, remember the RAID-5 parity is
distributed. A write takes two seeks, a read, a data write, and a parity
write, but the parity isn't a bottleneck, and as noted above the size
only need be the blocks containing the modified data.
bill davidsen <>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.052 / U:13.512 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site