Re: raid 10f2 vs 1 on 2 drives

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


William Thompson wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:36:12AM +0200, David Brown wrote:
On 22/05/12 21:33, William Thompson wrote:
I understand that raid 10 f2 is slower on writes due to the location of the
2nd copy.  My question is, if lots of writes are performed, could this
layout wearout the drives quicker than raid 1?

No, wear is not going to be significantly different.

You didn't say whether you are talking about hard disks (where

Sorry about that (Chief).  Yes, I was refering to hard drives.

location makes a difference, but "wear" on the drive motor is
insignificant to the disk's expected lifetime), or flash disks

I was thinking about how much more head movement there would be to write the
2nd copy of the data.

There _is_ no extra head motion. The location of consecutive blocks is different on each drive, but as I read the mapping function the distance between blocks on the same drive will be about the same, so amount of head motion (both number and distance) is the same on each drive, but the location of that motion is not the same.

One drive may be seeking at the outer edge of the platter while another seeks near the spindle, but there's the same amount of seeking on each.


--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
  "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Managing RAID on Linux]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device-Mapper]     [Kernel]     [Linux Books]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Photos]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite News]     [AMD 64]     [Linux Networking]

Add to Google Powered by Linux