On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 23:51 -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > That's why I qualified my statement with "large bits of data".
>
[snip]
>
> but if your files are less than one chunk-size... does that mean
> it all gets written to one disk ??
With raid 0, I
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Ron Johnson wrote:
> That's why I qualified my statement with "large bits of data".
:-)
> > same for 100GB files .. to split it into 2x 50GB each
> > on each spindle
> >
> > should be a fun driver to write(if needed), config and test
>
> Doesn't the md driver d
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 20:31 -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > Sure you will. If you are dealing with large bits of data,
> > writing to it will be N times faster because the computer writes
> > chunks of data to the disks in parallel.
>
> yup.. if you read/
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Sure you will. If you are dealing with large bits of data,
> writing to it will be N times faster because the computer writes
> chunks of data to the disks in parallel.
yup.. if you read/write data from the the 2 spindles
can the ide drivers be told
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 18:53 -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>
> > How is that? The RAID1 on my system read at nearly 2x the speed of a
> > single drive.
>
> raid1 is mrirror .. same data on both disks ... so you should expect
> to read 2x faster
>
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> How is that? The RAID1 on my system read at nearly 2x the speed of a
> single drive.
raid1 is mrirror .. same data on both disks ... so you should expect
to read 2x faster
raid0 is stripping ... just making two 40GB disks looking like on
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 08:57:31PM -0200, Bruno Diniz wrote:
> I´m running kernel 2.6.8 from stable. After trying a lot of possible
> solutions, I faced (possibly) the solution. This machine has four memory
> slots and is able to deal with 4GB. When I use the four 1GB memory chips, I
> get the syst
I´m running kernel 2.6.8 from stable. After trying a lot of possible solutions, I faced (possibly) the solution. This machine has four memory slots and is able to deal with 4GB. When I use the four 1GB memory chips, I get the system running pretty slowly. If I take off one of the chips, everything
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 11:05 -0200, Bruno Diniz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a system with two S-ATA hard disks and I configured raid0 with
> them using mdadm. Each HD has 200GB of capacity. What is weird is that
> after configuring the raid, the newly created device (/dev/md0) is
> slower than each
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:45:35AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Are those SCSI disks or IDE disks that are being accessed via SCSI
> emulation?
They're sata, on a sil3114.
--
Tom Vier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DSA Key ID 0x15741ECE
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:33:05AM -0500, Tom Vier wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:35:05AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > How is that? The RAID1 on my system read at nearly 2x the speed of a
> > single drive. Writing is where the performance is not nearly as good.
> > But the, I am usin
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:35:05AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> How is that? The RAID1 on my system read at nearly 2x the speed of a
> single drive. Writing is where the performance is not nearly as good.
> But the, I am using IDE drives with each of the two drive son its own
> channel.
No
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:29:46AM -0500, Tom Vier wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:05:53AM -0200, Bruno Diniz wrote:
> > /dev/sda:
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 170 MB in 3.01 seconds = 56.41 MB/sec
> > /dev/sdb:
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 180 MB in 3.01 seconds = 59.81 MB/sec
> > /dev/m
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:05:53AM -0200, Bruno Diniz wrote:
> /dev/sda:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 170 MB in 3.01 seconds = 56.41 MB/sec
> /dev/sdb:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 180 MB in 3.01 seconds = 59.81 MB/sec
> /dev/md0:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 134 MB in 3.04 seconds = 44.09 MB/se
> I have a system with two S-ATA hard disks and I configured raid0 with them
> using mdadm. Each HD has 200GB of capacity. What is weird is that after
> configuring the raid, the newly created device (/dev/md0) is slower than
> each of the disks individually. Look at the numbers:
<>
Just curious,
Hi all,
I have a system with two S-ATA hard disks and I configured raid0 with
them using mdadm. Each HD has 200GB of capacity. What is weird is that
after configuring the raid, the newly created device (/dev/md0) is
slower than each of the disks individually. Look at the numbers:
hdparm -Tt /dev/
16 matches
Mail list logo
