Your email program responded to me because I had replied directly to you. When I
reply to the whole list, most email programs will reply to the group because the
reply-to header is set to euglug.
This is actually my server. I still would go with SCSI because I need the features of
fault tollerance, and large harddrives.
However, I have some plans for a larger project in mind outside of work. This will
need a couple of computers, and I will be going with IDE, just because SCSI won't be
cost effective nor provide me with much.
Cory
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 12:19:50PM -0800, Bob Crandell wrote:
> Don't forget SCSI's ability to multitask which is becoming it's
> only reason to use it in a server environment.
> I have the same workstation setup as you do, for the same
> reason. It was a pretty hard lesson to learn that I could have
> done the same thing with IDE and not wasted so much money on
> heavy duty SCSI stuff. Sigh.
>
> I just noticed that my email program is responding directly to
> you. It is supposed to be responding to the list server. Can
> you do me a favor and direct your response to the list server if
> I miss it again? I don't know why it chose yours to do this to.
> Normally it works.
>
>
>
> >>> Cory Petkovsek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/4/2000 11:56:28
> AM >>>
> RAID 1 is faster for read than RAID 5, however RAID 5 is still
> pretty fast for reading because it doesn't need to calculate so
> much, mostly on writes. Hardware raid is vastly superior to
> software raid though. And SCSI 3 Ultra160 should be superior to
> IDE anything. But apparently it is not.
>
> It looks like the only advantages to a SCSI system is everything
> but speed and cost: space, external arrays, fault tollerance.
>
> Yet IDE is faster and cheaper, apparently.
>
> Cory
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 11:27:59AM -0800, Bob Crandell wrote:
> > From what I understand about RAID, RAID 1 (mirroring) is
> faster
> > than RAID 2 because of the math involved. This is true of
> > software or hardware RAID.
> >
> > I don't know if it's true of other OS, but Novell
> reads/writes
> > from/to the drive that's not busy and syncs during idle times.
>
> > This makes for a system that is visibly faster than a single
> > drive box.
> >
> > Ah yes. I get it now. The old man page ploy. Be prepared
> to
> > be impressed.
> >
> > >>> Cory Petkovsek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/4/2000
> 10:59:54
> > AM >>>
> > Ha, your firewall harddrive looks faster than your fileserver.
>
> > You should run it a couple of times so the first time it
> > allocates memory and the other times it runs a real
> benchmark.
> >
> > You start tweaking by reading the man page.
> >
> > quick reference:
> > c1/0 32-bit/16-bit mode
> > d1/0 dma on/off
> >
> > ie. hdparm -c1 -d1 /dev/hda
> >
> > Chris's Ultra66 went from 3.5mb to 27mb/sec. It looks like
> his
> > single 7200rpm ultra66 drive reads faster than my Ultra160 3
> > drive, raid 5 10krpm array. :(
> >
> > Cory
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 10:55:11AM -0800, Bob Crandell wrote:
> > > My Firewall where I don't care haw fast the HD is:
> > > CSGate:~# hdparm -tT /dev/hda
> > >
> > > /dev/hda:
> > > Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 2.86 seconds
> =44.76
> > > MB/sec
> > > Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 4.21 seconds =15.20
> > > MB/sec
> > >
> > > My file server (I'm hoping will replace our NW4.11
> someday):
> > > csmule:~# hdparm -tT /dev/hda
> > >
> > > /dev/hda:
> > > Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 7.93 seconds =
> 16.14
> > > MB/sec
> > > Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 6.18 seconds =
> 10.36
> > > MB/sec
> > > Hmm.. suspicious results: probably not enough free memory
> for
> > a
> > > proper test.
> > > /dev/hdb:
> > > Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 7.82 seconds =
> 16.37
> > > MB/sec
> > > Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 6.65 seconds =
> 9.62
> > > MB/sec
> > > Hmm.. suspicious results: probably not enough free memory
> for
> > a
> > > proper test.
> > >
> > > csmule:~# free
> > > total used free shared
> buffers
> >
> > > cached
> > > Mem: 160252 156112 4140 32752
> 118264
> >
> > > 8412
> > > -/+ buffers/cache: 29436 130816
> > > Swap: 224896 2152 222744
> > >
> > > I've heard this stuff is tweak-able. How do I? Where do I
> > > start?
> > >
> > > >>> Cory Petkovsek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/2/2000
> > 9:13:14
> > > PM >>>
> > > <snip>
> > > What kind of rates do you guys get with various hardware?
> > > Controllers, Raid, IDE, mdma/udma 33/66/100...
> > >
> > > Test your read speed under linux:
> > > ide only: (tests cache and disk reads, independently)
> > > hdparm -tT /dev/hda
> > >
> > > any drive:
> > > time dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=1024 count=102400
> > > (returns minutes and seconds)
> > > bc
> > > 100/(minutes*60+seconds)
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > Cory
