Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262270AbTELQVw (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2003 12:21:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262271AbTELQVw (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2003 12:21:52 -0400 Received: from siaag1ad.compuserve.com ([149.174.40.6]:5332 "EHLO siaag1ad.compuserve.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262270AbTELQVu (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2003 12:21:50 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 12:32:16 -0400 From: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Two RAID1 mirrors are faster than three To: Clemens Schwaighofer , Linux Kernel Mailing List Message-ID: <200305121234_MC3-1-3882-CFED@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 Content-Length: 737 Lines: 19 Clemens Schwaighofer wrote: > Why three drives in a Raid1? Raid one is just mirror, or is the third > drive like a "hot" replace drive if one of the others fail? The goal is to get better (read) performance, as well as extra redundancy. The system is supposed to balance reads among the available drives but in this case it breaks when there are more than two disks. I have a "changes way too much code" patch that fixes this; guess I should at least post it and see what happens... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/