Larry Price wrote: > We have an argument going here in the office regarding how to spec a > storage array for a high volume, low-latency production server that > would need to hold and serve approximately 1-3 TB of maildirs
Is the requirement to use maildir format nonnegotiable? For many/most workloads, I'd expect mbox format to run quite a bit faster. If I were you, I'd certainly spend an afternoon benchmarking both formats before committing to maildir. > the basic argument is about ata-raid vs. scsi ATA is the present and the future. SCSI is for old farts and the terminally large-budgeted. Here's the theoretical argument. SCSI disks (not the whole RAID systems, just the disks) are about 5X to 8X more expensive per gigabyte than IDE. With 5X more storage, you can configure your array for a lot more replication and parallelism (i.e., reliability and bandwidth), thus more than overcoming any real or perceived disadvantages of IDE. The practical problem is that because IDE was designed for PCs with one or two drives, it's complicated to get more than about ten IDE drives into a PC-architecture system. -- Bob Miller K<bob> kbobsoft software consulting http://kbobsoft.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
