Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 22:54:00 +0200 (CEST) From: Sten Spans <sten@blinkenlights.nl> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> Subject: Re: Very low disk performance on 5.x Message-ID: <Pine.SOC.4.61.0505022252190.787@tea.blinkenlights.nl> In-Reply-To: <18194.1115044656@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <18194.1115044656@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2 May 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <42763906.1040202@centtech.com>, Eric Anderson writes: >>> In message <6.2.1.2.2.20050502094757.037077f0@mail.rfnj.org>, Allen writes: >>> >>> I just want to add: This is why I really would love for us to have >>> a real RAID3 implemetation. >>> >>> RAID3 is not commercially viable because windows cannot use non-512 >>> byte sectors. >>> >>> We can. >>> >>> RAID3 would scream for us. >> >> What about disk arrays that support RAID3? > > Would work for me, but most of them are dumbed down when they do RAID3: > they have to hard format the disks to 128 byte sector sizes and similar > madness in order to support 512 bytes sectors on the RAID3 volume. I would really love the 512 + 8 byte checksum stuff that mainframes and netapps do. Does GEOM simplify implementing something like this ? -- Sten Spans "There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in." Leonard Cohen - Anthem
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SOC.4.61.0505022252190.787>