×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
Hello Rob,
Am 01.03.2024 um 16:43 schrieb Rob Berendt <robertowenberendt@xxxxxxxxx>:
Chores are piling up but a google search (platform independent) shows a
line like: "...4 drives will give you more throughput than 3 as you’ll be
striping reads across 3 drives rather than 2, so theoretically it should be
as good as 50% faster."
Well, this is also true if you add even more disks. Five will give you more throughput than four, and so on.
As far as I've understood RAID5, read performance is equal to a simple stripe set, and it should be clear that three disks will outperform a single disk, or even a mirror (RAID1). Writes can have multiple penalties: Checksum calculation and writing, reading blocks from strips which aren't in memory but are needed for checksum calculation, etc. As long as the controller can keep up with the checksum calculation and disk contention isn't achieved by the additional read and write traffic for handling checksums as described above, I can't see why a three disk RAID5 is meant to perform *particularly* bad.
What I'm after is: What is so special about "only three disks" giving especially bad performance? And compared to what?
:wq! PoC
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
