David Lazo wrote:
I'm sorry to bother you again with this.
So we have the server but we have 4 Drives and now that I'm trying to set up
the RAID10 I'm starting to think I needed 5 Drives one for the OS?.
Please advise.
David.
<snip>
We built one pretty close to this recently. You definitely want to go
with raid10, make sure the controller is hardware and not software raid
(uses the CPU for everything, opposed to having a dedicated on board CPU)
The more spindles the better, in order to use RAID10 you need an even
set of disks, min 4. Raid10 gives you the best performance while keeping
data redundancy. I would set it up like this:
Raid1 -- OS (you could use slower/smaller drives here)
Raid10 -- all of the mysql data -- as many spindles as you can afford.
If you have to swap out 73GB drives for for the 146's to get more
spindles, I would do that (that would increase cost a bit, but the disk
sub system here would be the bottle neck, so you want to have it as fast
as you can get it -- and still be affordable)
This all depends on what your data environment looks like as well.
We have RAID 1 for the OS (requires 2 disks)
If you are doing data redundancy for the DB, you'd want to also do data
redundancy for the OS...
If it is a windows server, 32GB drives should give you plenty of space
to work with (save some money) and you can get away with 10Krpm or if
budgets are tight, 7200rpm.
Our layout is mentioned in my previous mail.
--
Thanks,
James Rallo
Trusswood Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.Trusswood.Net
Tele: (321) 383-0366
Fax: (321) 383-0362
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
