OK that is for hardware level RAID. I had thought that you would offset
the extra processing time by being able to write less to each drive.
Now does anyone know how much overhead Windows 2000/2003 software RAID 1
on dynamic disks produces over hardware level RAID 1?
I am assuming it would be substantial.
Goran Jovanovic
The LAN Shoppe
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Pete McNeil
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 11:43 AM
To: Goran Jovanovic
Subject: Re[2]: [sniffer] Moving Sniffer to Declude/SmarterMail
On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 11:25:46 AM, Goran wrote:
snip/
GJ I guess this is going against what I think should be happening. In
a
GJ RAID 5 array the write to the drives is broken into many smaller
writes
GJ along with the data protection/CRC info and then those writes are
GJ written to different drives. It seems to me that it should be
faster
to
GJ do a bunch of small writes rather than 1 big write.
GJ What am I missing?
Writing data to a single hard drive takes x amount of work.
Writing data to more than one drive takes x+y amount of work where y
is breaking up the data into chunks.
Writing data to a raid 5 takes x+y+z amount of work where y is
described above and z is calculating a CRC stripe which must now also
be saved to a hard drive.
So, writing to raid5 is relatively very expensive compared to writing
to a plain old hard drive, or a less complex raid (such as mirroring).
IMO, the best strategy for email servers is to use an ordinary, single
fast HD for all spool operations, and place mailboxes on a raid 1 or
raid 10.
Hope this helps,
_M
This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For
information
and (un)subscription instructions go to
http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and
(un)subscription instructions go to
http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
