On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 2:05:00 PM, Goran wrote:
GJ> OK that is for hardware level RAID. I had thought that you would offset
GJ> the extra processing time by being able to write less to each drive.
GJ> Now does anyone know how much overhead Windows 2000/2003 software RAID 1
GJ> on dynamic d
> Now does anyone know how much overhead Windows 2000/2003 software RAID 1
> on dynamic disks produces over hardware level RAID 1?
>
> I am assuming it would be substantial.
I have never noticed an issue, and I would only assume there would be an
issue in higher end databases or where the CPU was
substantial.
Goran Jovanovic
The LAN Shoppe
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Pete McNeil
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 11:43 AM
> To: Goran Jovanovic
> Subject: Re[2]: [sniffer] Moving Sniffer to D
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete McNeil
> Sent: 16. marts 2005 17:43
>
> Writing data to a raid 5 takes x+y+z amount of work where y
> is described above and z is calculating a CRC stripe which
> must now also be saved to a h
On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 11:25:46 AM, Goran wrote:
GJ> I guess this is going against what I think should be happening. In a
GJ> RAID 5 array the write to the drives is broken into many smaller writes
GJ> along with the data protection/CRC info and then those writes are
GJ> written to differ
John,
>
> It is a well known and published fact (on the Imail list) that RAID5
> should
> never ever be used for the spool directory or any other directory that
has
> a
> high write activity. This is basic physics. RAID5 should really only
be
> used
> for high read activity only, such as database
On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 9:01:34 AM, Nick wrote:
NM> Pete
NM> OK, I now have much more information on this problem with
NM> Declude/Sniffer/SmarterMail.
NM> It seems the current version of Declude does not have an Overflow Directory
NM> for SmarterMail, which therefore allows unlimited Decl
Thanks John - I didn't know that, but it would explain things...
Nick
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff (Lists)
Sent: 16 March 2005 14:40
To: sniffer@SortMonster.com
Subject: RE: [sniffer] Moving Sniffer to De
> One thing we did whilst in the middle of this was to move all the log and
> spool files to a standalone disk instead of the RAID5 array for the main
> server, and we have seen a real reduction in the physical disk queue
> lengths, which, under significant load, helps. Worth knowing.
>
>
> Nick
iMail. Hope some people can learn from our pain!
Nick
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Pete McNeil
Sent: 14 March 2005 19:23
To: Nick Marshall
Subject: Re: [sniffer] Moving Sniffer to Declude/SmarterMail
On Monday, March 14, 2005, 12:47:
On Monday, March 14, 2005, 12:47:33 PM, Nick wrote:
NM> Hi there
NM> We've just undergone a migration of a 1,000 domain iMail server to
NM> SmarterMail (for obvious reasons!), and using Declude and Sniffer on the new
NM> system.
NM> However, occasionally we see Sniffer jumping out of its perpet
Hi there
We've just undergone a migration of a 1,000 domain iMail server to
SmarterMail (for obvious reasons!), and using Declude and Sniffer on the new
system.
However, occasionally we see Sniffer jumping out of its perpetual mode by
spawning thousands of threads which obviously make the server
12 matches
Mail list logo