| 1 |
Gary E. Miller posted on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:50:43 -0700 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:38:00 -0700 Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> On the read side I'm not sure if I'm understanding your point. I agree |
| 7 |
>> that a so-designed RAID1 system could/might read smaller portions of a |
| 8 |
>> larger read from RAID1 drives in parallel, taking some data from one |
| 9 |
>> drive and some from another drive, and then only take action corrective |
| 10 |
>> if one of the drives had troubles. However I don't know that |
| 11 |
>> mdadm-based RAID1 does anything like that. Does it? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> It surely does. I have confirmed that at least monthly since md has |
| 14 |
> existed in the kernel. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Out of curiosity, /how/ do you confirm that? I agree based on real usage |
| 17 |
experience, but with a claim that you're confirming it at least monthly, |
| 18 |
it sounds like you have a standardized/scripted test, and I'm interested |
| 19 |
in what/how you do it. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 23 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 24 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives