On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Josh Paetzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Danny Do wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am building a 6x500GB SATA HARDWARE RAID5 storage server to
>> - Store large files, 10BM~1GB/file
>> - Handling 500+ concurrent connections
>> - Transfer rate around 100~200Mbit/s
>>
>> I am thinking of using the patch from Wojciech Puchar to reduce hard drive
>> data seek in order to handle large number of concurrent connections whilst
>> outputting 100~200Mbit/s.
>>
>> patch /usr/src/sys/sys/param.h
>> #ifndef DFLTPHYS
>> #define DFLTPHYS        (1024 * 1024)   /* default max raw I/O transfer size
>> */
>> #endif
>> #ifndef MAXPHYS
>> #define MAXPHYS         (1024 * 1024)   /* max raw I/O transfer size */
>> #endif
>> #ifndef MAXDUMPPGS
>>
>>
>> To store files greater than 10MB, I come up with the following proposal for
>> my File System:
>> - UFS2
>> - Soft Update  Enable
>> - block-size   1,048,576
>>
>> I am not completely sure what advantage I got from this configuration but I
>> am pretty sure that FSCK is much quicker with 1M file system block-size.
>>
>> Is there any other thing I need to consider in term of performance and
>> reliability?
>>
>> I hope that this system will perform much better than my current 6x300GB
>> SCSI 10K RPM system.
>>
>> Appreciate any advice,
>>
>> Danny
>
> Why do you think slower drives using an interface that has known
> problems handling concurrent connections will be faster than faster
> drives using an interface designed for concurrency?
>
> Based on my experiences with SATA vs. U160/U320 SCSI or SAS your likely
> outcome is to see a marked decrease in performance.  I'd be interested
> to hear your results.
>
>
> - --
> Thanks,
>
> Josh Paetzel
>
> PGP: 8A48 EF36 5E9F 4EDA 5ABC 11B4 26F9 01F1 27AF AECB
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
>
> iD8DBQFI4hxmJvkB8SevrssRAqErAJ0Tt9WPT25RhkUfGVLxEzSykEMvtwCeKXRV
> jdgJ/whLeeAQ3E97i7FkB4w=
> =UyD6
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>
Interface concurrent connection problems?, do you have a link or something?

actually i recommend again the RAID 10, if you want performance for
heavy I/O (multiple reading,not only one file lineal reading)
for storage intensive apps its the way to go.


-- 
mmm, interesante.....
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to