I'm struck by the old axiom:
You can have it fast.
You can have it reliable.
You can have it cheap.
But you can only have 2 of the 3.
If you figure out how to get all 3. Call me.
-gordon
On Mon, 28 May 2001, Wilko Bulte wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 04:31:17PM +, E.B. Dreger wrote:
Matthew Jacob([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2001.05.28 09:54:28 +:
Ah. You want to reinvent the drum?
matt,
when i recall it right, someone told me about a paper presented at
usenix about logging to a single disk which is exactly the thing that
would do the job here. it was, i think, discussed in a
Greetings all,
I just had a brainstorm...
I was thinking about database servers with several spindles in a RAID 5
array. Write performance is inherently disappointing -- which may or may
not be an issue.
Would it be worth the trouble to design an intermediate cache, whereby
data are quickly
Ah. You want to reinvent the drum?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Hi, (I'm geussing the 'public+spam' bit is standard removal stuff)
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 04:31:17PM +, E.B. Dreger wrote:
array. Write performance is inherently disappointing -- which may or may
In my opinion this is the same as how MFS when used without limitation can
also be a bad
E.B. Dreger schrieb:
Greetings all,
I just had a brainstorm...
I was thinking about database servers with several spindles in a RAID 5
array. Write performance is inherently disappointing -- which may or may
not be an issue.
It is. Even RAID 1 is better than RAID 5
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 19:49:40 +0200
From: Christoph Sold [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My gut feel is that this would be more trouble than it's worth, would
not net any overall performance*reliability (expressed as a
product) gain, and that one might actually realize a p*r decrease.
IMHO it would
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 17:54:24 +0100
From: Dominic Marks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ snip ]
disc caching. The idea of perhaps caching writes onto a RAID-0 system
I meant caching onto an arbitrary volume, probably using a simple
journalling filesystem. Personally, a RAID 1 volume would be my
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 04:31:17PM +, E.B. Dreger wrote:
Greetings all,
I just had a brainstorm...
I was thinking about database servers with several spindles in a RAID 5
array. Write performance is inherently disappointing -- which may or may
not be an issue.
Would it be worth
On Mon, 28 May 2001, E.B. Dreger wrote:
:
:Of course, with 36 GB drives readily available, maybe I shouldn't worry
:until I have a database larger than 72 GB. ;-)
If you're really interested in database performance, remember Spindles is
good. Spreading your IO load over as many seperate disks,
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 19:01:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Scheidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ snip ]
If you're really interested in database performance, remember Spindles
is good. Spreading your IO load over as many seperate disks, on as
many independent IO channels as practical will improve
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 19:01:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Scheidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ snip ]
If you're really interested in database performance, remember Spindles
is good. Spreading your IO load over as many seperate disks, on as
many independent IO channels as practical will
12 matches
Mail list logo
