Re: High performance random-access disk operations (Raidframe?)

[Chris Ross <cross+netbsd%distal.com@localhost>]

On May 15, 2010, at 17:53, Matthew Mondor wrote:
> I've indeed seen "RAID 10" used for such circumstances (that is, a  
> RAID
> 1 for redundancy, which is stripped using RAID 0 for performance).  I
> would assume the raidframe performance to be decent with a good
> configuration, unless the machine is quite slow...

  Well, there are a lot of issues here.  (1) RAID 1+0 requires 4  
disks  (right?).  Not necessarily a problem, but worth noting.  (2) I  
don't actually care about the data, so the cost of the "RAID 1" part  
is a waste.  (3) As it turns out, the filesystems I was originally  
looking at combining *aren't* t he same size, which is unsupported by  
RAIDframe anyway.

  So, I'm working with ccd(4) at the moment.  We'll see how that works.

                         - Chris