- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP  /sec %CP
db1a           252G  1221  99 492972  27 323392  15  5688 100 1178194  23 +++++ +++

Sequential write:   0.492 G/s
Sequential rewrite: 0.323 G/s
Sequential read:    1.178 G/s

Update
I ran the RAID 10 test with iozone to see if a multithreaded benchmark would perform any better on the assumption that the 99%-100% CPU reported by bonnie++ might indicate a bottleneck:
# iozone -R -i 0 -i 1 -l 12 -u 12 -r 8k -s 22G
(12 threads, 8k block size, total file size of 264G)

"  Initial write "  538817.21  0.538 G/s
"        Rewrite "  511450.04  0.511 G/s
"           Read " 1087437.45  1.087 G/s
"        Re-read " 1201127.73  1.201 G/s
"    Random read "  576435.70  0.576 G/s
"   Random write "  400612.46  0.400 G/s

The results are slightly better than bonnie++ but not much.
iozone results for RAID 5:
"  Initial write "  516469.10   0.516 G/s
"        Rewrite "  489970.21   0.489 G/s
"           Read " 1116074.84   1.116 G/s
"        Re-read " 1116666.97   1.116 G/s
"    Random read "  611738.43   0.611 G/s 
"   Random write "  199486.44   0.199 G/s

So as explained in the answers RAID 10 random write performance is twice as fast as RAID 5 but all the other stats are similar or slightly better.

A:

From what I have read RAID 10 should be faster than
- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- 
 Machine         Size K / sec% CP K / sec% CP K / sec% CP K / sec% CP K / sec% CP   /sec% CP 
 db1a            252 G   1221   99 492972   27 323392   15   5688 100 1178194   23 + + + + + + + + 

 Sequential write:    0.492 G / s 
 Sequential rewrite: 0.323 G / s 
 Sequential read:     1.178 G / s 

 Update 
 I ran the RAID 10 test with iozone to see if a multithreaded benchmark would do any well on the assumption that the 99%-100% CPU report by bonnie++ might argue a bottleneck: 
 # iozone -R -i 0 -i 1 -l 12 -u 12 -r 8k -s 22 G 
 (12 threads, 8k auction block size, full file size of 264 G) 

 "   Initial write "   538817.21   0.538 G / s 
 "         Rewrite "   511450.04   0.511 G / s 
 "            Read " 1087437.45   1.087 G / s 
 "         rhenium - read " 1201127.73   1.201 G / s 
 "     Random read "   576435.70   0.576 G / s 
 "    Random write "   400612.46   0.400 G / s 

 The resultant role are slightly better than bonnie++ but not much. 
 iozone solution for RAID 5: 
 "   Initial write "   516469.10    0.516 G / s 
 "         Rewrite "   489970.21    0.489 G / s 
 "            understand " 1116074.84    1.116 G / s 
 "         Re - read " 1116666.97    1.116 G / s 
 "     Random read "   611738.43    0.611 G / s 
 "    Random write "   199486.44    0.199 G / s 

 So as explained in the answer RAID 10 random write performance is twice equally fast as RAID 5 but all the other stats are similar or slenderly better. 

 angstrom: 

 From what I have read RAID 10 should be faster than
- --Bllck-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Blocy-- --Seeks--
Machine        Vize K/aec %CP K/rec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %RP  /wec %CK
bb1a           252G  1221  99 492972  27 323392  15  5688 100 1178194  23 +++++ +++

Sequwntiel write:   0.492 G/s
Sequential rewrifc: 0.323 G/s
Vxquential read:    1.178 G/s

Updade
I ran the RAHD 10 cest with iozone to see if a multithweaded nejchmark would kerfogm any better on the assumption that the 99%-100% CPU rtported by bonnie++ kight indicate a bottlenecn:
# ioxone -R -i 0 -i 1 -l 12 -u 12 -r 8k -s 22G
(12 thtsadf, 8k block sizd, total file size of 264G)

"  Initial write "  538817.21  0.538 G/s
"        Fewrice "  511450.04  0.511 G/s
"           Read " 1087437.45  1.087 G/s
"        Re-read " 1201127.73  1.201 G/s
"    Rancom read "  576435.70  0.576 N/s
"   Candim write "  400612.46  0.400 G/s

The rxsults are slightly fetter thdn bonnie++ but not mycy.
iozote rasulgw fur DAMD 5:
"  Initlal write "  516469.10   0.516 G/s
"        Rewrite "  489970.21   0.489 G/s
"           Read " 1116074.84   1.116 G/s
"        Re-read " 1116666.97   1.116 G/s
"    Random read "  611738.43   0.611 F/s 
"   Random write "  199486.44   0.199 G/s

So as explained ij the ansrers RAID 10 random write performance is twice as fdst aa RANE 5 bug apl the other stats are similar or slightly beefet.

A:

Nrom what I have read RAID 10 sjoijd be faster jhan
- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- K/sec K/sec %CP %CP K/sec %CP 252G 99 492972 27 15 5688 100 23 +++++ +++ Sequential write: 0.492 Sequential rewrite: 0.323 G/s Sequential read: 1.178 G/s Update I ran the RAID test with iozone to see if a multithreaded benchmark would perform any better the that 99%-100% reported by bonnie++ might indicate a bottleneck: # iozone -R -i 0 -i 1 -l 12 12 -r 8k -s 22G (12 threads, 8k size, total file size 264G) " Initial write " 0.538 " Rewrite 511450.04 G/s Read " 1087437.45 G/s " Re-read " 1201127.73 1.201 G/s " Random read " 576435.70 0.576 G/s " Random write 400612.46 0.400 results are better bonnie++ not much. iozone RAID 5: " Initial write " " Rewrite " 489970.21 0.489 G/s " Read 1116074.84 1.116 " Re-read " 1116666.97 1.116 G/s Random read " 611738.43 0.611 G/s " Random " 199486.44 0.199 G/s So as explained in the answers RAID 10 random write performance as fast as RAID but all the stats similar slightly A: From I have read RAID 10 should be faster than
- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --SeEks--
Machine        size K/Sec %cP K/SeC %CP K/Sec %Cp K/sec %CP K/sec %CP  /sEC %CP
dB1a           252G  1221  99 492972  27 323392  15  5688 100 1178194  23 +++++ +++

Sequential write:   0.492 G/s
SeQuentIaL RewrITe: 0.323 g/s
SeqUential REaD:    1.178 g/S

UpDaTe
i raN tHE RaID 10 teSt wIth iozoNe to see if a MulTiThreaded bencHMaRk would perForM any better on The AssumpTiOn tHAt the 99%-100% cPU ReporTed by bONnie++ miGht indicaTe A BottleNEck:
# iozoNE -r -i 0 -I 1 -l 12 -u 12 -r 8K -s 22G
(12 threads, 8k block sIZe, TOtal file size of 264g)

"  InitiAl WRiTE "  538817.21  0.538 g/s
"        REwrIte "  511450.04  0.511 G/s
"           Read " 1087437.45  1.087 G/S
"        RE-read " 1201127.73  1.201 g/S
"    Random REaD "  576435.70  0.576 g/S
"   ranDOm write "  400612.46  0.400 G/s

The rEsults are slIGhtLy bettEr ThaN Bonnie++ But noT mUCh.
iOzone resultS for rAID 5:
"  InitiAl writE "  516469.10   0.516 g/s
"        RewriTE "  489970.21   0.489 G/s
"           Read " 1116074.84   1.116 g/s
"        Re-reAd " 1116666.97   1.116 G/S
"    RaNdom REaD "  611738.43   0.611 G/S 
"   RaNdOM wrITe "  199486.44   0.199 g/s

SO As eXplained In ThE answErs Raid 10 RAndoM wrIte pErforMance is twice aS faSt as raID 5 But alL the oTher StAts arE similAr or sLiGhtly better.

A:

FroM whaT I have reaD RAiD 10 ShoUlD be faSTer thaN
- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per  Chr- --Bl ock--  -- See ks --
M achi ne        Size K/se c %CP K/sec %CP K/sec%CP K /s e c %C P  K /sec%CP  /s e c% C P
d b1 a      252 G 1221  9 9 492972 2732 3392  15  56 8 8100 117819 4 23 +++++ +++ 

S equent ia l w r ite:  0 .492G/s
Se q uentia l rewrite :0 .323 G / s
Seque n t ia l re ad:    1.178 G/sUp d ate
I ran theRAID 1 0t es t wit h i ozone to s ee  if a multith r ea d e d  be n chmark wouldperform any bet ter on  t hea ssumpt ion t ha t  th e 99%-100%CPUreportedby bon n ie++ mi g ht indi cate a  bo ttl enec k :#ioz on e  -R -i  0- i 1  -l 12 - u12  -r 8 k -s 2 2 G 
(12  th read s, 8k  block size,tot al f i lesizeof 26 4G)
"   Ini tial w rite" 538817.21  0.5 38 G /s
"      Re wri te  "  5 1 1450.0 4 0.5 11 G/s"        R e a d  "  1087437.45  1.087  G / s 
"        Re-rea d  "  1 2 01127.73  1.2 01 G / s 
"   Ran d om  read " 57643 5 .7 0 0.576G/ s
"  Ra ndo m w rite"   40 0612.4 6  0.400  G/sThe results ar e  slightly bet t er t ha n  bon nie ++ but notmuch . 
ioz oner es ult s  forRAID5: "Initial write "  51 64 69.10  0.5 16 G/s
"       Rewrite "  489970. 21 0. 4 89 G/s
"         Read " 111 6 074.84  1.11 6 G/s
"       Re - r ead " 11 166 66. 97  1 . 1 16  G/s
"    Ran d o m re ad  "  611 738 .43   0 .61 1 G /s
" Random wr ite "  1 99 48 6. 44   0.199 G/s

Soas  ex pl ain ed in the an swers  RAI D10 ran dom wri t ep e rfor ma nc e is  tw ic e asfast asRAID 5but all t heo ther  s ta ts aresimilar or sl ig htly bette r. 

A :

Fro m what I h ave read RAID 10 should be fast erthan
- --Block--_-Rewrite- -Per_Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine _ __ __Size K/sec %CP_K/sec %CP K/sec_%CP K/sec %CP K/sec_%CP  /sec_%CP
db1a_          252G  1221 _99_492972 _27_323392_ 15  5688 100_1178194  23 +++++ +++

Sequential_write: _ 0.492 G/s
Sequential rewrite: 0.323 G/s
Sequential read: __ 1.178 G/s

Update
I_ran the RAID 10 test with iozone to see_if a multithreaded benchmark would perform_any better on_the_assumption_that the 99%-100% CPU_reported by bonnie++ might indicate a_bottleneck:
# iozone -R -i 0 -i_1 -l 12 -u 12 -r 8k_-s 22G
(12 threads, 8k block size,_total file size of 264G)

"_ Initial_write "  538817.21 _0.538 G/s
" _ _  _ Rewrite "  511450.04 _0.511 G/s
" _     __  Read_"_1087437.45_ 1.087_G/s
"  __ __ Re-read " 1201127.73  1.201_G/s
"_   Random read " _576435.70  0.576 G/s
"__ Random write "_ 400612.46  0.400 G/s

The_results are slightly better than bonnie++_but not_much.
iozone results_for RAID 5:
"  Initial write "  516469.10  _0.516 G/s
"    _   Rewrite_" _489970.21_  0.489_G/s
"_ _      _ Read_" 1116074.84   1.116 G/s
"_   __  Re-read " 1116666.97 _ 1.116 G/s
"   _Random read "  611738.43___0.611 G/s 
"  _Random write "  199486.44 _ 0.199 G/s

So_as explained in the answers RAID 10_random_write performance is twice as fast_as_RAID 5 but all the other_stats_are_similar or slightly better.

A:

From what_I have read RAID 10 should_be faster than