On Saturday 03 January 2009 10:20 pm, Peter Manis wrote: > Sorry for the lack of specifying in the first post, I was mainly > directing it to their situation and how RAID1 was a poor choice. The > reason RAID5 and RAID6 are much faster at reading is the same reason > RAID0 is superior in read speed to RAID1. The data is spread across > a number of drives and when the data is read back each drive pulls > small chunks to reconstruct the file. If each drive in the array can > do a max of 120MB/s you are going to get significant speeds when > pulling from multiple drives at once.
Thanks for the clarification, Peter. We're always looking for ways to have more efficiency along with high availability, but it's not as easy as in corporate solutions because our product is (mostly) individual dedicated servers. We're now looking into webservers using atom processors and/or smaller form-factor hard drives. Jeff -- Jeff Lasman, Nobaloney Internet Services P.O. Box 52200, Riverside, CA 92517 Our jplists address used on lists is for list email only voice: +1 951 643-5345, or see: "http://www.nobaloney.net/contactus.html";
