Am 13.06.24 um 21:54 schrieb Dragan Milivojević:

quoted

the whole discussion is nonsense

you won't find any difference between a !! NVME RAID !! with TWO disks
which is worth even to open a discussion

Previous response got blocked, maybe because it was just a link. Let's
see if this works.
Summary:

| fio iodepth=256, numjobs=4                       |  IOPS |     BW
| lat (usec) avg |
|--------------------------------------------------|:-----:|:---------:|:--------------:|
| Sequential 4k read, single disk                  |  828k | 3233MiB/s
|           1236 |
| Sequential 4k read, 4 disk RAID0, 64k chunk      |  666k | 2602MiB/s
|           1536 |
| Sequential 512k read, single disk                | 13.6k | 6798MiB/s
|          75300 |
| Sequential 512k read, 4 disk RAID0, 64k chunk    | 47.1k |   23GiB/s
|          21745 |
| Sequential 4k read, 2 disk RAID10F2, 64k chunk   |  523k | 2044MiB/s
|           1956 |
| Sequential 512k read, 2 disk RAID10F2, 64k chunk | 27.2k | 13.3GiB/s
|          37675 |


full test log: https://pastebin.com/raw/eq2CbjY7

not very appealing

Sequential 4k read, single disk                  |  828k | 3233MiB/s
Sequential 4k read, 2 disk RAID10F2, 64k chunk   |  523k | 2044MiB/s

RAID0 is off-topic when it comes to RAID1/RAID10 with two disk and not a 
RAID at all