3 ms·
"Specifically, we saw a 50% performance benefit addressing disks directly rather than going through the G3 hardware RAID." Wow 50%! Is this because raid contro
by Element_ 13y ago
"Specifically, we saw a 50% performance benefit addressing disks directly rather than going through the G3 hardware RAID."
Wow 50%! Is this because raid controller performance hasn't kept up with the evolution from spinning disks to SSD's, or have raid controllers always had that much overhead?
- lotyrin 13y agoNo, it's just that their workload is not very well served by any RAID levels: many small files of which it's okay to completely lose a disk's worth and are very randomly and unevenly accessed. They actually only wanted load balancing and I'm sure that their purpose built solution does a better job of being balanced while avoiding increased risk from striping or performance loss from mirroring or parity (I'm curious what level(s) they were using). Though, cutting out the RAID layer when they didn't need it does save them a trip through the controller, which is more important these days when compared to SSD "seek" times.
- eastdakota 13y agoYup.