Re: Poor raid 1 performance?
- From: Mark <pleasenospam@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:28:26 GMT
Peter wrote:
Yes, but also _any_ read is done twice, on both channels and both
mechanisms
(and furthermore they are then checked for equality between, which adds a step, which could be a reason for misperformance).
I do not see why you could see improvements, any other things being equal
of
course.
http://www.9to5computer.com/atto/Comparing-Raid-Configurations.htm http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/perf/raid/levels/singleLevel1.html
With a good controller, sequential read performance equals that of a single drive, random read performance scales up with number of drives in a RAID.
Thanks. These were the sorts of descriptions that led me to hope that raid 1 would lead to improved read performance. Eg, one site says that "Read performance is faster than a single disk; (if the array controller is capable of performing simultaneous reads from both devices of a mirrored pair)."
This is why I was then suspecting that the motherboard implementations are poor. On the other hand, it might be just that the test was more reflective of sequential than random read performance.
Can anyone suggest a raid 1 array that has improved performance? .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Poor raid 1 performance?
- From: Peter
- Re: Poor raid 1 performance?
- References:
- Poor raid 1 performance?
- From: Mark
- Re: Poor raid 1 performance?
- From: Bruce T. Berger
- Re: Poor raid 1 performance?
- From: Bob Willard
- Re: Poor raid 1 performance?
- From: Antoine Leca
- Re: Poor raid 1 performance?
- From: Peter
- Poor raid 1 performance?
- Prev by Date: Re: Poor raid 1 performance?
- Next by Date: Re: Poor raid 1 performance?
- Previous by thread: Re: Poor raid 1 performance?
- Next by thread: Re: Poor raid 1 performance?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|