On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, David Murphy wrote:
> I have only ever argued that 2-disk RAID1 is a better choice than
> 3-disk RAID5.
and on which criteria were you arguing? speed wasn't it?
"RAID5 is relatively safe and cheap. It's not relatively fast."
> Nobody has yet posted 2-disk RAID1 v 3-disk RAID5 numbers on the same
one Vs. the other, no. But we have at least seen the RAID5 benchmarks
4 disk RAID5: 37MB/s block read, 8MB/s block write.
3 disk RAID5: 34MB/s block read, 17MB/s block write.
That clearly shows that RAID5 can be /very/ fast, contrary to what
> therefore there has been nothing but speculation on all
> sides, mine included.
no. I have /seen/ the figures from linux software raid with my own
2 disk RAID1 wasn't much of an improvement over single disk,
3 disk RAID5 was a vast improvement. (~ x 1.5).
> I have benchmarked nothing, and haven't
> suggested otherwise. I said that I did not know what linux did with
> reads from a RAID1 device. I don't know how you get from there to a
> suggestion that Linux software raid is deficient.
s/is defficient/perhaps suboptimal/
that was the implication anyway.
Paul Jakma paul at clubi.ie
PGP5 key: http://www.clubi.ie/jakma/publickey.txt
I can't decide whether to commit suicide or go bowling.
-- Florence Henderson
 all arrays had write-through set. Write performance would be
better if they were write-back.
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!