06-02-2010
Thank you for your response, but my question is not so much the observation that it faster but why. Why should RAID0 be faster than a single disk?
10 More Discussions You Might Find Interesting
1. IP Networking
For some reason 8.1 Mandrake Linux seems much slower than Windows 2000 with my cable modem. DSL reports test says they conferable speed with Windows2 though.
This is consistant slow with both of my boxes, at the same time. Linux used to be faster, but not with Mandrake. Any way to fix this? (17 Replies)
Discussion started by: lancest
17 Replies
2. Shell Programming and Scripting
Hi ,
I need to copy every day about 35GB of files from one file system to another.
Im using the cp command and its toke me about 25 min.
I also tried to use dd command but its toke much more.
Is there better option ?
Regards. (6 Replies)
Discussion started by: yoavbe
6 Replies
3. Solaris
friends,
Suppose I am typing metastat command and it is showing:
d100: Concat/Stripe
Size: 369495 blocks (180 MB)
Stripe 0: (interlace: 32 blocks)
Device Start Block Dbase Reloc
c1d0s0 16065 Yes Yes
c1d0s1 0 No Yes... (4 Replies)
Discussion started by: saagar
4 Replies
4. UNIX for Dummies Questions & Answers
i)wc -c/etc/passwd|awk'{print $1}'
ii)ls -al/etc/passwd|awk'{print $5}' (4 Replies)
Discussion started by: karthi_g
4 Replies
5. Linux
Hi,
I have the Lacie Big Disk, which is a external hard drive enclosure in a hardware RAID0 array of 2x250GB disks. The RAID controller seems to have died, leaving me with 2 working hard drives but no way to get the data. I tried hooking the drives up to a windows machine and using Raid... (4 Replies)
Discussion started by: dangral
4 Replies
6. UNIX for Advanced & Expert Users
Hi,
I have this mirrored system with soft-partitions.
I have a difficulty determining the lucreate cmd in this env.
#metastat -p
d0 -m d10 d20 1
d10 1 1 c1t2d0s0
d20 1 1 c1t3d0s0
d1 -m d11 d21 1
d11 1 1 c1t2d0s5
d21 1 1 c1t3d0s5
d100 -p d1 -o 58720384 -b 8388608
d200 -p d1 -o... (1 Reply)
Discussion started by: chaandana
1 Replies
7. UNIX for Dummies Questions & Answers
i'm trying to decide if to move operations from one of these hosts to the other. but i cant decide which one of them is the most powerful.
each host has 8 cpus.
HOSTA
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 44
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU ... (6 Replies)
Discussion started by: SkySmart
6 Replies
8. Hardware
Hey all,
I've got an old HP9000 L1000 server with HP-UX installed. The drives that the OS is running on are in RAID0. I am concerned for the reliability of the server. The four hard drives in the front of the server are LVD 18.2 drives. I know with RAID0, if one drive fails, they all fail. ... (2 Replies)
Discussion started by: mroselli
2 Replies
9. Solaris
Hello all, this is my first time posting here. Where I work we have multiple servers (x3-2's) running Solaris 10u11 with 2 drives configured as RAID0, 300GB per. There are 4-6 open slots for drives to clone to.
Past attempts to clone/backup these drives has failed. One of the machines is... (1 Reply)
Discussion started by: eprlsguy
1 Replies
10. UNIX for Dummies Questions & Answers
Hi there,
I've setup a raid0 array of 3 identical disks using :
mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md0 --level=stripe --raid-devices=3 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1I'm using dstat to monitor the disk activity :
dstat --epoch -D sdb,sdc,sdd --disk-util 30The results show that the stress is not... (8 Replies)
Discussion started by: chebarbudo
8 Replies
LEARN ABOUT ULTRIX
pnmscalefixed
pnmscalefixed(1) General Commands Manual pnmscalefixed(1)
NAME
pnmscalefixed - scale a portable anymap quickly, but less accurate
DESCRIPTION
pnmscalefixed is the same thing as pnmscale except that it uses fixed point arithmetic internally instead of floating point, which makes it
run faster. In turn, it is less accurate and may distort the image.
Use the pnmscale man page with pnmscalefixed. This man page only describes the difference.
pnmscalefixed uses fixed point 12 bit arithmetic. By contrast, pnmscale uses floating point arithmetic which on most machines is probably
24 bit precision. This makes pnmscalefixed run faster (30% faster in one experiment), but the imprecision can cause distortions at the
right and bottom edges.
The distortion takes the following form: One pixel from the edge of the input is rendered larger in the output than the scaling factor
requires. Consequently, the rest of the image is smaller than the scaling factor requires, because the overall dimensions of the image are
always as requested. This distortion will usually be very hard to see.
pnmscalefixed with the -verbose option tells you how much distortion there is.
The amount of distortion depends on the size of the input image and how close the scaling factor is to an integral 1/4096th.
If the scaling factor is an exact multiple of 1/4096, there is no distortion. So, for example doubling or halving an image causes no dis-
tortion. But reducing it or enlarging it by a third would cause some distortion. To consider an extreme case, scaling a 100,000 row image
down to 50,022 rows would create an output image with all of the input squeezed into the top 50,000 rows, and the last row of the input
copied into the bottom 22 rows of output.
pnmscalefixed could probably be modified to use 16 bit or better arithmetic without losing anything. The modification would consist of a
single constant in the source code. Until there is a demonstrated need for that, though, the Netpbm maintainer wants to keep the safety
cushion afforded by the original 12 bit precision.
pnmscalefixed does not have pnmscale 's -nomix option.
18 November 2000 pnmscalefixed(1)