[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: High performance random-access disk operations (Raidframe?)
On May 15, 2010, at 17:53, Matthew Mondor wrote:
I've indeed seen "RAID 10" used for such circumstances (that is, a
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
So, I'm working with ccd(4) at the moment. We'll see how that works.
Main Index |
Thread Index |