Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost> writes: > On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 03:07:24PM -0700, Brian Buhrow wrote: >> >> Presumably, the underlying disks can use what ever strategy they use for >> handling queued data, but I'm wondering if there is a particular reason the >> fcfs strategy was chosen for the raidframe driver as opposed to letting the >> system administrator pick the strategy? My particular environment has a > > RAIDframe implements its own disk sorting algorithm (several, actually) > internally. Why sort twice? I don't follow this. - RAIDframe might not be the only user of the physical disk - without thinking too much, it seems that the normal strategies should be used to sort requests to RAIDframe, and also the normal strategies to sort requests made by RAIDframe to the physical disks. Perhaps the latter should do fairshare between raid and other, and keep raid in order. This is all nonobvious to me and I'd venture that how it really ought to be is even a research topic.
Description: PGP signature