On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:23:41PM +0100, Des Keane mentioned:
> At risk of labouring the point, but another nice thing about RAID 1+0 is
> the resync time. Say 4+4 73GB disks, or 4(1+1) since you're into maths
> today! With RAID 1+0 you get to resync 73GB of data if you lose a single
> disk and replace it (hot spare or otherwise). With RAID 0+1 in the same
> scenario you get to twiddle your thumbs whilst performance dives in
> resyncing 292GB of data.
We did some tests yesterday. DL380 with 2GB RAM, a pair of 2.8Ghz CPUs,
and six 36GB 15k RPM drives. HPs do RAID1+0 and RAID5 in hardware, at
speed - both at just over 40MB/sec for writes.
We did a pair of parallel kernel compiles. RAID1+0 came in a smidgin
faster, at 47 minutes 41 seconds, while RAID5 did the same job in 47
minutes 46 seconds.
I've a feeling that the limitation we are seeing is the hardware RAID
card itself though. If I get bored some day, and find I have more really
fast disks, I'll try the same with software RAID.
john
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!
