tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8576685377660292511.post7141669246368072309..comments2010-05-12T14:46:22.131-05:00Comments on PyCurious: RAID5,6 and 10 Benchmarks on 2.6.25.5Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03995814881901195370noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8576685377660292511.post-51252276009236820402010-05-12T14:46:22.108-05:002010-05-12T14:46:22.108-05:00Broken images fixed.Broken images fixed.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03995814881901195370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8576685377660292511.post-28366116388281244112010-05-07T05:42:48.150-05:002010-05-07T05:42:48.150-05:00broken images!
the html page is ../2008/07/.. and...broken images!<br /><br />the html page is ../2008/07/.. and the img files are referred to as being in a subdirectory. But actually the image files are in a subdirectory of ../2007/08/.. so they don't appear!djhnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8576685377660292511.post-40715040867371728212008-07-14T08:34:00.000-05:002008-07-14T08:34:00.000-05:00I was also thinking that another graph: all of the...I was also thinking that another graph: all of the raid levels and layouts as the xaxis for just one chunk size. Probably 64, 512, and 2048K.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03995814881901195370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8576685377660292511.post-36899164280985606192008-07-14T08:29:00.000-05:002008-07-14T08:29:00.000-05:00I'd be interested in a graph where the best perfor...I'd be interested in a graph where the best performing raid5, raid6, raid10 configs were stacked up against each other.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>LeifAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8576685377660292511.post-24274127914787211462008-07-12T15:49:00.000-05:002008-07-12T15:49:00.000-05:00neilbrown: I adjusted the configuration to include...neilbrown: I adjusted the configuration to include 2048 (and exclude 128) and re-ran the tests. I'll be putting the results up in the next day or so!Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03995814881901195370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8576685377660292511.post-41973128902720131942008-07-11T17:31:00.000-05:002008-07-11T17:31:00.000-05:00<i>Why are raid10,o2 reads so AWFUL?</i><br><br>to...<I>Why are raid10,o2 reads so AWFUL?</I><BR/><BR/>to get a read boost with o2, you need to have chunks large enough that they totally<BR/>cover one or more cylinders. That way<BR/>the drive can seek over skipped chucks<BR/>rather than read over them.<BR/><BR/>If your chunks are exactly cylinder sized and perfectly aligned you would get close to a factor of 2. But perfect alignment is impossibleNeilBrownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8576685377660292511.post-62260480165694519752008-07-11T09:26:00.000-05:002008-07-11T09:26:00.000-05:00You can also try:<br><br><a href="http://chart.api...You can also try:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=lc&chs=600x400&chd=e:gAfEcRYXTu,usz52UzW..,gXgLc1Y7UG,yazW3Q1k..,gjd9dZX0TW,yO1k1k1k8d,gjfcdBYMSy,z50R1kzK4L&chtt=Frozen%20Treats%21&chdl=left-asymmetric%20-%20writing|left-asymmetric%20-%20reading|left-symmetric%20-%20writing|left-symmetric%20-%20reading|right-asymmetric%20-%20writing|right-asymmetric%20-%20reading|Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03995814881901195370noreply@blogger.com