From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263577AbTDCUCe (for ); Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:02:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263578AbTDCUCe (for ); Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:02:34 -0500 Received: from siaag1ae.compuserve.com ([149.174.40.7]:46769 "EHLO siaag1ae.compuserve.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263577AbTDCUBJ (for ); Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:01:09 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:10:45 -0500 From: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com> Subject: RAID 5 performance problems To: "Jonathan Vardy" Cc: linux-kernel Message-ID: <200304031512_MC3-1-32E0-8338@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >Tos be certain that this was not the bottleneck, I removed it >from the raid so that is runs in degraded mode. This did not >change the performance much Don't do that and expect a valid performance test. On average, one-fifth of all array reads will cause reads from all four remaining disks in order to reconstruct the missing data when you run in that mode. -- Chuck