Jens Frank wrote:
The RAID eats up some of the raw disks' space with the redundancy. Either that or I've lost track of something. ;)
Hm, shouldn't 6 of 8 disks (8 - 1 for parity - 1 spare) per RAID be available in a RAID 5? So each array should provide 2400 GB (2232 GiB, don't know if Ganglia's GB really are GB or wrongly named GiB).
Sorry, the wikitech page about amane was not up to date.
[...]
Ah yes, that's an explanation and matches the 3,257 GB from Ganglia better.
This was the fastest available configuration with redundancy. Only RAID0 was reading faster. The server has 8GB memory, so 10GB test file size were chosen.
That gives less space available but actually I was uneasy about RAID5 from the security point of view anyway.
Thanks, Jürgen