Vincent Fox wrote:
Jeff Fookson wrote:
We are planning to run the mirrors
off a 4-port 3ware RAID card even though we're not overly fond of
3ware (we have a fair amount of experience
with RAID5 arrays on 3ware cards on our research machines where they
perform adequately but
not more). We
Patrick Boutilier wrote:
We have used 3ware cards as well but are now switching to Highpoint RAID
cards.
Hopefully you're testing them extensively. I found them, at least the
last time I used them (RocketRAID?), to be woefully lacking in the linux
driver area as well as performance. In
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Ian G Batten wrote:
software RAID5 is a performance
disaster area at the best of times unless it can take advantage of
intimate knowledge of the intent log in the filesystem (RAID-Z does
this),
actually, unless you have top-notch hardware raid controllers, software
On 05 Mar 08, at 1549, Simon Matter wrote:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Ian G Batten wrote:
software RAID5 is a performance
disaster area at the best of times unless it can take advantage of
intimate knowledge of the intent log in the filesystem (RAID-Z does
this),
actually, unless you have
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Ian G Batten wrote:
On 05 Mar 08, at 1549, Simon Matter wrote:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Ian G Batten wrote:
software RAID5 is a performance
disaster area at the best of times unless it can take advantage of
intimate knowledge of the intent log in the filesystem (RAID-Z does
David Lang wrote:
raid 6 allows you to loose any two disks and keep going.
This is turning into a RAID discussion.
The orginal poster was doing a RAID-5 across 3 disks, and has stopped
commenting but it's probably because that's all the hardware he could
scrounge.
I am a staunch member
Jeff Fookson wrote:
We are planning to run the mirrors
off a 4-port 3ware RAID card even though we're not overly fond of
3ware (we have a fair amount of experience
with RAID5 arrays on 3ware cards on our research machines where they
perform adequately but
not more). We are hoping the
but all attempts to simulate
a client load-pattern are devilishly difficult to get right.
I can atest to this as well.
I created an imapstresstest tool a few years back to attempt to stress our
cyrus installs. It attempts to emulate all the main actions of a running
IMAP server like lots of
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Ian G Batten wrote:
software RAID5 is a performance
disaster area at the best of times unless it can take advantage of
intimate knowledge of the intent log in the filesystem (RAID-Z does
this),
actually, unless you have top-notch hardware raid controllers, software raid
it takes long enough to rebuild an array with large drives that the
chances of a second drive failing during the rebuild become noticable.
Worse, the act of rebuilding can prompt a second, marginal disk to fail.
Presumably the mechanics are the head runs through a patch of debris in
an otherwise
10 matches
Mail list logo
