Re: Stupid question regarding RAID-1 access pattern
From: Robin Hill <hidden>
Date: 2010-01-06 23:10:04
Attachments
- (unnamed) [application/pgp-signature] 198 bytes
From: Robin Hill <hidden>
Date: 2010-01-06 23:10:04
On Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 04:13:55PM -0600, Billy Crook wrote:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 15:37, Robin Hill [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
I doubt this would help much really. If you're reading sequential data then it's pretty much as quick to keep reading as to seek to the next chunk.Could it hurt [performance]? SSDs will only become more common, and they haven't any seek penalty.
Probably not, with SSDs, but we've already got RAID10 which, if I'm not
mistaken, does pretty much what you're describing (if not, can you
provide some diagrams of what the layout you're thinking of would look
like).
Cheers,
Robin
--
___
( ' } | Robin Hill [off-list ref] |
/ / ) | Little Jim says .... |
// !! | "He fallen in de water !!" |