Never think enough is enough.. Current operation levels can easily be pushed many times their current level/ratio in a short matter of time, and databases can grow rapidly (Even tho it's not identified here)
I have spec'd boxes before based on someone reccomendations for load, and then found 2 months later the box is choking, time to upgrade = potential downtime.. 2 extra disks is minimal cost for the I/O boost and amount of extra capacity you'll get. I agree with the write cache and battery backup... Any decent raidcard has that option for a few bucks... 4GB database today, can easily turn into a 20GB database tomorrow.. Never think small, On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Jochem van Dieten wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I'd go with raid 1+0 ... Be a shame to have that much cpu power and become > > I/O bound.. This way you've got 4 disks feeding the cpu's instead of 2.. > > Better performance than raid 5, and only 2 more disks than your current > > config. > > If you have 8 GB of RAM and 4 GB of database, you would only > become I/O bound if write a few hundred blocking commits per > second to the disk*. In that case, having a battery backed RAID > adapter with write cache enabled is a much better way of > improving performance as going from RAID 1 to RAID 1+0. > > *Presuming the OS has a sane disk cache or is 64 bit. > > Jochem > > -- > I don't get it > immigrants don't work > and steal our jobs > - Loesje > > > -- > MySQL General Mailing List > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
