[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: raid1 performance

> Lemme see if I am getting closer.
> When reading the disk there will be head seeks necessary. When there
> are two disks, each with its own complete copy of all the data, there
> is no reason to keep the two disks' heads in the same place. If their
> heads are in different places, a read can be issued to the disk whose
> heads are closer to the desired location.

yes. Look at raid1.c: the code is quite clear. Older versions didnt.

> This then brings up two more questions:
> 1. Does the OS even know where the heads are in a modern IDE disk?

Not really. But there is probably a vague correspondence. Especially if
you havent remapped any bad sectors.

> 2. Is "closer" any more finely grained than a binary
> positioned/not-positioned?

I think so. You can see different performance regions on disks (ie they
are faster on the outside for example). You could of course write a program
to test seek times from different areas and build up a real locality map.
It might not be worth it though.

> And I guess another question: How much does RAID 1 help and under what
> kinds of usage?

the latency is noticeably less in some cases, as the seeks should be smaller
on average. I have found this useful sometimes.

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 13:22    [W:0.070 / U:0.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site