RAID 5 sucks for writes in the first place, but is excellent for reads. I'm
running raid 5 on my mailing list box for availability reasons, but that
distributes to my qmqp servers which are all RAID 0. I don't care that much
if I lose a drive on the QMQP servers since I can have a new one built in
about 15 minutes. I'll just lose my queue, which is only newsletter
subscriptions anyway. It would suck to lose the queue, but it's not mission
critical and the chances of it happening are low. Although, I'm sure it
will happen sometime.
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter van Dijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:30 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: concurrency remote patch
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:19:30AM +0900, James T. Perry wrote:
[snip]
> > I had both of my QMQP servers bouncing off of the 120 limit
> > yesterday, and they were pretty much idle (Dell 2450's with
> > 2 striped 9GB 10k rpm drives).
>
> Which RAID level?
> I remember somebody mentioning in this list that 0+1 will perform
> faster than 3 (or 5 obviously ;).
> I can't confirm this since I don't have that kind of artillery
> here at home. Anybody?
I know that RAID5 sucks on Mylex DAC1100 controllers, and that RAID0+1
is blindingly fast :)
Greetz, Peter
--
dataloss networks
'/ignore-ance is bliss' - me
