Re: Why are reads not balanced across my RAID-1?

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

 



On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 08:56:02AM -0600, Matt Garman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 6:04 AM,  <keld@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The reading is not balanced because it does not make sense to do balanced
> > reads for sequential reading. In RAID-1 the disk sectors are consequitive.
> > So if you would read one sector from one disk, and the following sector from the other disk,
> > then the next read from disk 1 would need to skip a full resolvation of the disk,
> > which may cost something like 8 ms.  So better read contigously from the same disk, and hope
> > for some other IO request that can use disk 2.
> 
> 
> Does that rationale hold for SSDs?

No, this is not relevant for SSDs as access time is almost zero.

best regards
keld
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux