From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 26 16:03:00 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D68A16A4CF for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:03:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpout.mac.com (smtpout.mac.com [17.250.248.86]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1460043D55 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:03:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com (smtpin07-en2 [10.13.10.152]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id i9QG2xaW007626; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:02:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.1.245] ([199.103.21.225]) (authenticated bits=0) by mac.com (Xserve/smtpin07/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id i9QG2vHL004090; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:02:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <417E71BB.1000508@ng.fadesa.es> References: <14479.1098695558@critter.freebsd.dk> <417D25E8.6080804@ng.fadesa.es> <200410251928.01536.victor@alf.dyndns.ws> <200410251837.58257.Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com> <417D3F12.20302@DeepCore.dk> <417D40A1.9030802@ng.fadesa.es> <417D45F1.9090504@freebsd.org> <77F3FD4D-26BE-11D9-9A2F-003065ABFD92@mac.com> <417E71BB.1000508@ng.fadesa.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <7EDDC9D6-2768-11D9-A6B1-003065ABFD92@mac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Charles Swiger Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:02:54 -0400 To: fandino@ng.fadesa.es X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3b7and poor ata performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:03:00 -0000 On Oct 26, 2004, at 11:48 AM, fandino wrote: > Charles Swiger wrote: >> Disagree. Why else would you use RAID-0 striping? > > speed? Certainly, we are in agreement that the main purpose of RAID-0 is to improve performance. >> [ If you simply want to create a logical volume bigger than the size >> of a physical drive, you can use concatenation instead. ] > > because it doesn't split the load over disks and you get busy disks > and idle disks. Also true, which is why concatenations aren't commonly used, whereas striping is. [ The reason why I mentioned it at all is because creating a larger logical volume than what can fit on a physical drive is a common secondary purpose for RAID-0 modes. For some people, it might even be a primary purpose. ] -- -Chuck