lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: raid1 performance
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 06:35:53PM +0200, Jakob Østergaard wrote:
> This is *not* as simple as it sounds. Believe me, I spent a week trying...
>
> However, with ext2 (and other filesystems as well), a large sequential file
> read is *not* sequential on the disk. You should actually see better performance
> on RAID-1 than on a single disk for very large reads, becuase some of the lookups
> needed (block indirection or whatever) will be run by the "best" disk in the given
> situation.

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.

This then brings up two more questions:

1. Does the OS even know where the heads are in a modern IDE disk?

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

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


Thanks,

-kb, the Kent who is getting smarter.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.072 / U:31.568 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site