On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 23:41:51 +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 09:00:34AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 15:34:37 +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:06:33AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
On Monday, 10 December 2001 at
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 09:00:34AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 15:34:37 +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:06:33AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> >> On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 10:30:04 -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> >>>
..
> >>> and will g
On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 15:34:37 +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:06:33AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
>> On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 10:30:04 -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>>>
> performance without it - for reading OR writing. It doesn't matter
> so mu
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 03:34:37PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:06:33AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> > I think this is what Mike was referring to when talking about parity
> > calculation. In any case, going across a stripe boundary is not a
> > good idea, though of course
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:06:33AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 10:30:04 -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> >
> >>> performance without it - for reading OR writing. It doesn't matter
> >>> so much for RAID{1,10}, but it matters a whole lot for something like
> >>
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:06:33AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 10:30:04 -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> >
> >>> performance without it - for reading OR writing. It doesn't matter
> >>> so much for RAID{1,10}, but it matters a whole lot for something like
> >>
