Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:15:51 -0700 From: Sandy Rutherford <sandy@krvarr.bc.ca> To: Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Subject: Re: Yet another RAID Question (YARQ) Message-ID: <17080.48071.705585.35147@szamoca.krvarr.bc.ca> In-Reply-To: <42B69C30.6070603@dial.pipex.com> References: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNGEMAFBAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> <42B69C30.6070603@dial.pipex.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:36:32 +0100, >>>>> Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com> said: > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>> Sandy >>> Rutherford >>> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 10:52 PM >>> >>> >>> In order to boost read performance, a RAID card should interleave >>> reading from a RAID-1 volume by reading alternately from one drive and >>> then the other. You can see this in alternate blinking of the >>> activity lights of the drives. If you are not seeing this when >>> copying a large file, then this would suggest that a RAID-1 volume is >>> not working as it should. >>> >>> >>> >> >> Incorrect. What you are describing is RAID-0. RAID-1 is mirroring. >> Here's >> >> > I don't think you read the message correctly. It said that *reads* were > interleaved not that the *data* was interleaved. That's exactly what I said. Thanks. Ted, I am aware that RAID 1 is mirroring. However, any proper implementation of RAID 1 should also boost read performance and if during a read you are not seeing activity on both drives in the RAID 1 volume, then I would say this is a good indication that something is wrong. Sandy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17080.48071.705585.35147>