Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759141AbYCZLHX (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:07:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757215AbYCZLHN (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:07:13 -0400 Received: from smtp8-g19.free.fr ([212.27.42.65]:37192 "EHLO smtp8-g19.free.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755585AbYCZLHM convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:07:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:07:13 +0100 From: Emmanuel Florac To: "Bart Van Assche" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RAID-1 performance under 2.4 and 2.6 Message-ID: <20080326120713.24cb8093@harpe.intellique.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20080325194306.4ac71ff2@galadriel.home> Organization: Intellique X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.12.9; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 846 Lines: 21 Le Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:42:19 +0100 "Bart Van Assche" ?crivait: > Keep in mind that the above test tests two subsystems at the same > time: RAID-1 + the filesystem on top of it. I'm using XFS usually, and I've also checked against the raw devices and it looks the same (2.4 still faster). I must add that the difference is somewhat reduced when using a single disk drive vs. RAID-1, obviously due to different buffering policy in the RAID subsystem. -- ---------------------------------------- Emmanuel Florac | Intellique ---------------------------------------- -- 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/