Guido van Rooij wrote:
> But a single-threaded process accessing a large file should also be
> able to see a speed increase. I really do not see why a split or roundrobin
> approach to a mirror would get only half the performance of a raw access
> to a non-mirror. Somehow there must a limit of 128
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 03:50:04PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Guido van Rooij wrote:
> > Anyway, I created a gm device and a partition. Now the read performance
> > is not what I'd expect.
> > I have the partition on two SATA devices on different controlers.
> > I get around 60MB/s for each
Oliver Fromme wrote:
Guido van Rooij wrote:
> Anyway, I created a gm device and a partition. Now the read performance
> is not what I'd expect.
> I have the partition on two SATA devices on different controlers.
> I get around 60MB/s for each disk. I can get that speed from both disks
> simu
Guido van Rooij wrote:
Anyway, I created a gm device and a partition. Now the read performance
is not what I'd expect.
I have the partition on two SATA devices on different controlers.
I get around 60MB/s for each disk. I can get that speed from both disks
simultaneously.
Now when I dd from the g
Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I tried with -b split -s , -b round-robin, -b load.
> > (dd-ing as done with a bs of 1m; I see the transaction size is 128Kb,
> > unless the split method is used, in which case the transaction size
> > gies down. When round-robin is used, the transa
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 03:24:55PM +0200, Guido van Rooij wrote:
> Anyway, I created a gm device and a partition. Now the read performance
> is not what I'd expect.
> I have the partition on two SATA devices on different controlers.
> I get around 60MB/s for each disk. I can get that speed from bot
Guido van Rooij wrote:
> Anyway, I created a gm device and a partition. Now the read performance
> is not what I'd expect.
> I have the partition on two SATA devices on different controlers.
> I get around 60MB/s for each disk. I can get that speed from both disks
> simultaneously.
> Now when
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 12:48:29PM +0200, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
> You don't need to.
>
> If your bsdlabel partition is N sectors in size, the gmirror
> object will have size N - 1. Newfs will not be able to write
> to that last sector. You newfs the finished mirror device,
> not the individual
