> > very nature (ok, it's conceivable that read performance could be
> > increased somewhat, but write performance would, if anything, be decreased
> > somewhat). Again, if the cache is actually playing a role in this
> > benchmark, then what you are really saying is that IDE is so fast that
> > it's 4x faster than DPT's cache memory. Think about that for a minute.
> Come off it, when you do disk benchmarks you use a dataset sufficently
> large so that the cache doesn't matter. Linux does caching just fine,
> DPT's cache is somewhat redundant.
His system wasn't Linux, it was SCO. If you looked at his data set size,
it was 9 MB and his cache was 32 MB. So yes, his benchmark was completely
inappropriate which is what everyone is trying to point out here.
> Almost all other raid levels perform worse (like raid 5 where the fastest
> write takes 2 reads 1 block XOR and 1 write).
You are talking about latency, not thoroughput. Read up on RAID, RAID-0 is
not the only version of RAID with performance advantages.
> The fastest raid array is a combo of raid-0(striping) and raid-1.
Why would this be faster than just RAID-0?
--Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/