ve are spamassassin bayesian rules and horde3/imp web
> > mail. Both do a lot of updates. The bayesian rules are added to each time
> a
> > spam message comes in for any of our 200 users. And the horde3/imp writes
> > address book updates and preferences quite often.
> &
quite often.
>
> I have read (and have been told) to stay away from RAID-5 for
> update-intensive systems. Are there performance concerns with RAID-10 as
> well? We will be buying from Dell (done deal for reasons too complicated to
> go into) and the disks they're selling are 146 Gb
3/imp web mail. Both do
> a lot of updates. The bayesian rules are added to each time
> a spam message comes in for any of our 200 users. And the
> horde3/imp writes address book updates and preferences quite
> often.
>
> I have read (and have been told) to stay away from RAID-5
On Wed, March 10, 2010 09:04, Dan Nelson wrote:
> In the last episode (Mar 10), John G. Heim said:
>> I have read (and have been told) to stay away from RAID-5 for
>> update-intensive systems. Are there performance concerns with RAID-10
>> as
>> well? We will be buyi
In the last episode (Mar 10), John G. Heim said:
> I have read (and have been told) to stay away from RAID-5 for
> update-intensive systems. Are there performance concerns with RAID-10 as
> well? We will be buying from Dell (done deal for reasons too complicated
> to go into) a
ed to each time a
spam message comes in for any of our 200 users. And the horde3/imp writes
address book updates and preferences quite often.
I have read (and have been told) to stay away from RAID-5 for
update-intensive systems. Are there performance concerns with RAID-10 as
well? We will be b
cht-
> >> Von: Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator
> >> [mailto:goetz.reini...@filmakademie.de]
> >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. November 2009 12:05
> >> An: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> >> Betreff: Virtual servers, Raid 10 or Raid 01 - your opinions?
> >>
majk.sko...@eventim.de schrieb:
>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>> Von: Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator
>> [mailto:goetz.reini...@filmakademie.de]
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. November 2009 12:05
>> An: mysql@lists.mysql.com
>> Betreff: Virtual servers
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator
> [mailto:goetz.reini...@filmakademie.de]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. November 2009 12:05
> An: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Betreff: Virtual servers, Raid 10 or Raid 01 - your opinions?
>
> Hi,
Hi,
>
Decidedly RAID 10 - that is, a concatenation of mirrors. You get a lot more
redundancy that way.
Raid 01:
[A+B+C+D]
[E+F+G+H]
Here, a single disk lost in each concatenation (so two in total) loses you
the set. Probability is 1/8 * 4/7 (0.0714).
Raid 10:
[A] [B] [C] [D]
[E] [F] [G] [H]
Here
Obviously raid 10 would be better choice!.
Recommended for safety and performance.
Thanks,
Krishna Ch. Prajapati
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator <
goetz.reini...@filmakademie.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I do get two new Sun Fire X4170 servers with 8 SA
(Webserver-Sun <-> MySQL-Sun) )
There are more reads than writes.
To simplify matters, I'd like to use virtual MySQL-Servers (Master and
Slave) on the sun and use one large raid.
Also I was thinking, to use one RAID 1 for the virtualisation-system and
the other six harddisks for the virt
In one of the more effective high-loads shops I have worked in, we
deployed RAID 1 for logs and RAID 10 for data. The number of disks we
put into those RAID 10's depended on anticipated load of the specific
application. We often found ourselves needing additional spindles to
meet high I/O
reads.)
>
> What would be a good raid-Layout for the server?
>
> I was thinking of one large 1+0 or 0+1 as 1.2TB would be more than
> enought.
>
> Or may be I do split things up like this: one raid 1 for the system,
> one raid 1 for logfiles, one raid 1+0/0+1 for the dat
Hi,
soon I'll get a SUN X4170 with 8*2,5" SAS 300 GB harddisks. (24 GB RAM)
This system could be our new central mysql-server for some LAMP-systems.
(right now about 50 GB mysql data total, roughly 60-70% reads.)
What would be a good raid-Layout for the server?
I was thinking of o
Does anybody have any RAID-10 sysbench fileio numbers for random writes with
any number of disks(4/6/8/12...) to compare with write cache(512,256,...)
backed by BBU..
I really appreciate your nos..
or whats the decent requests/sec for pure rndwrs ?
s disk space and it will cost much more.
> I would recommend using one of the "RAID in a box" solution. They have
> big caches for the whole RAID and they are optimized to the
> controllers. If money isn't really an issue, you may look into
> something like NetApp. That woul
Hi Waynn,
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Waynn Lue wrote:
> I currently have a RAID 5 setup for our database server. Our space is
> running out, so I'm looking to increase the disk space. Since I'm doing
> that anyway, I decided to re-evaluate our current disk array. I w
t you will have less disk space and it will cost much more.
I would recommend using one of the "RAID in a box" solution. They have
big caches for the whole RAID and they are optimized to the
controllers. If money isn't really an issue, you may look into
something like NetApp. That would
What RAID level to use, whether to use SCSI or SATA etc are all pretty
much "how long is a piece of string?" questions. If you have a really
high end hardware array RAID 5 may be faster than RAID1+0 is on a
cheaper system.
Basically
RAID 5 = slower
SATA = slower
RAID 1+0 = f
I work for a high-volume web site and we use nothing but RAID 10 on
all databases which requires a minimum of 4 disks. The write penalty
for raid 5 is just too high for our application. Much of that space
goes unused, but we need the stripe to keep up with the I/O.
- michael dykman
On Sun
I currently have a RAID 5 setup for our database server. Our space is
running out, so I'm looking to increase the disk space. Since I'm doing
that anyway, I decided to re-evaluate our current disk array. I was told
that RAID 5 isn't a good choice for databases since it's
On Thursday, 20 October 2005 at 16:57:36 +0800, Hiu Yen Onn wrote:
> hi all,
>
> currently, i have a machine with raid 1 and raid 5 (backplane). in order
> to boost up the mysql performance, does it advise install /var/ (mysql
> data directory) into raid 1 or raid 5? please advise.
hi all,
currently, i have a machine with raid 1 and raid 5 (backplane). in order
to boost up the mysql performance, does it advise install /var/ (mysql
data directory) into raid 1 or raid 5? please advise. thanks
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
On Sep 28, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Atle Veka wrote:
I am planning on running some tests on a SATA server with a 3ware 9000
series RAID card to see if there's a stripe size that performs
better than
This might be able to help you out:
http://hashmysql.org/index.php?title=Opteron_HOWTO
I am planning on running some tests on a SATA server with a 3ware 9000
series RAID card to see if there's a stripe size that performs better than
the current setting (which I don't recall at the moment, probably
whatever the max is). This will be RAID10 and our databases are either in
th
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Gary Richardson wrote:
My guess is that the RAID has nothing to do with it -- it seems very unlikely.
In any case, if you want top performance out of your raid, you may
want to change things up. You'd get better performance if you didn't
use RAID5. Use RAID1 or
My guess is that the RAID has nothing to do with it -- it seems very unlikely.
In any case, if you want top performance out of your raid, you may
want to change things up. You'd get better performance if you didn't
use RAID5. Use RAID1 or RAID10 for your data drives. RAID5 is slower
G'morning all!
(Using Red Hat Linux Enterprise 4.1)
I have a Dell PowerEdge 2800 with a PERC 4 RAID controller. The RAID
controller has one RAID 1 mirror and one RAID 5 stripe volume created.
We installed most of the OS stuff on the RAID 1 set and the
/usr/local and /var on the RAID
rently replacing the drives
with Seagates. We'll take the 3K RPM hit for piece of mind.
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 17:04:54 +1100, Richard Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tweakers.net has completed a comparison of 9 serial ATA RAID 0/1/5/10
> controllers at:
> http://www.tweakers.
Tweakers.net has completed a comparison of 9 serial ATA RAID 0/1/5/10
controllers at:
http://www.tweakers.net/reviews/557
There is a specific section on MySQL performance in the section:
http://www.tweakers.net/reviews/557/25
Just thought these articles would be of interest to some (it&#
Paul:
Thank you for your response. Another question:
Would it cause a problem if I configure --with-raid and then never use it in
any programming? Will it add any overhead?
It would help if this feature is available for future use.
Thanks 2nd time.
Kirti
-Original Message-
From: Paul
At 15:19 -0500 11/10/04, Kirti S. Bajwa wrote:
Hello List:
System: RH9, MySQL 4.1.7
I am in the process of re-setting up (I have test setup 4-5 times) a data
server with the above software. This server consists of 2-CPU (Intel)
RAID-1, 1-40GB IDE HDD for O/S & 2-250GB IDE HDD for storing data.
Hello List:
System: RH9, MySQL 4.1.7
I am in the process of re-setting up (I have test setup 4-5 times) a data
server with the above software. This server consists of 2-CPU (Intel)
RAID-1, 1-40GB IDE HDD for O/S & 2-250GB IDE HDD for storing data. 250 GB
IDE HDD are mirrored (RA
Rick Dwyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I want to install MySQL on a RAID mirror drive using two ATA 125GB
> for the mirror. I know in a webserver config, it's best to put the
> boot OS on one drive and the shared serving folder on the RAID mirror
> drive. Under a MyS
Years ago I designed a system using Lasso (3.5 I think) with FileMaker
running on OS 9 on a 300Mhz G3 that handled about 4K hits per day, most
hits during typical works hours. Your system is definitely not in the
high-performance realm (no offense) and your hardware should handle the
load quite
h give you performance hits,
especially having one controller. But it's definitely a workable setup
that still should give you decent performance.
On Jul 28, 2004, at 3:30 PM, Rick Dwyer wrote:
Hello all.
I want to install MySQL on a RAID mirror drive using two ATA 125GB for
the mirro
Rick Dwyer wrote:
>> Assuming its not a super-high performance situation, I would put
>> everything on the RAID 1 volume.
>
> Richard, what would you define as super-high performance? This MySQL
> database server will serve as the backend for a Lasso/ OS X Apache
> webserv
Assuming its not a super-high performance situation, I would put
everything on the RAID 1 volume.
Richard, what would you define as super-high performance? This MySQL
database server will serve as the backend for a Lasso/ OS X Apache
webserver handling thousands of hits per day. Will
Rick Dwyer wrote:
> Hello all.
> I want to install MySQL on a RAID mirror drive using two ATA 125GB
> for the mirror. I know in a webserver config, it's best to put the
> boot OS on one drive and the shared serving folder on the RAID mirror
> drive. Under a MySQL server, if
Hello all.
I want to install MySQL on a RAID mirror drive using two ATA 125GB
for the mirror. I know in a webserver config, it's best to put the
boot OS on one drive and the shared serving folder on the RAID mirror
drive. Under a MySQL server, if I install the OS and MySQL all on
the m
Hello all.
I want to install MySQL on a RAID mirror drive using two ATA 125GB
for the mirror. I know in a webserver config, it's best to put the
boot OS on one drive and the shared serving folder on the RAID mirror
drive. Under a MySQL server, if I install the OS and MySQL all on
the m
I highly recommend simply using ext3 for your Linux
setup. The 1 or 2 percent performance benefit that
you may get from raw partitions is way outweighed by
complexness of backups of the raw data.
either way:
First I would suggest you read the Linux RAID howto:
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Software
I bought a supermicro 6013p-t for the 4 sata raid hard drives support.
Unfortunately, it doesn't really have raid at all. So I'm forced to use
software raid. What I'd like to use is fedora core 2 with an innodb
filesystem on a software raid partition according to these inst
In the last episode (Apr 13), Yonah Russ said:
> Can anyone explain what the raid configure option does? Is this for
> use when storing mysql on hardware raid? if so, what type(s)- ie.
> striping, mirroring?
It's mainly to support tables over 2gb on old Linux kernels that can&#x
Can anyone explain what the raid configure option does? Is this for use
when storing mysql on hardware raid? if so, what type(s)- ie. striping,
mirroring?
Thanks
yonah
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL
.html
.
List:MySQL General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From: Jeremy Zawodny Date:March 18 2004 11:48pm
Subject: Optimal RAID stripe size(s) for InnoDB?
Has anyone done much testing with RAID stripe sizes for heavy
concurrency InnoDB-based applications?
I'm expecting that using a stripe
Has anyone done much testing with RAID stripe sizes for heavy
concurrency InnoDB-based applications?
I'm expecting that using a stripe size that matches InnoDB's page size
would make sense, but it could save a lot of testing if someone else
has already done this.
Thanks,
Jeremy
--
Kirti S. Bajwa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Worked like a charm.
>
>Thanks. You are a life saver.
>
>> The easiest way to do this would be to move the data directory and
>>all its contents onto the RAID disks. Then symlink to that directory from
>>the origin
Worked like a charm.
Thanks. You are a life saver.
Kirti
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 2:21 PM
To: Kirti S. Bajwa
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How to install data on a RAID H
>I have no problem installing MySQL on the main HDD but can not figure out
>what changes are needed so all the data goes to RAID disks. I am a newbie so
>please, give direction!!
The easiest way to do this would be to move the data directory and
all its contents onto the RAID dis
Configure your my.cnf data_dir parameter to point to the raid Hard Drive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 2/24/04, 12:44:13 PM, Kirti "S." Bajwa
up MySQL
server, as soon as I know how.
I plan to install MySQL on a RH 9 Server named "data". This server has one
main disk (which is a boot disk with all the O/S ) and two RAID-1 HDD
mirroring one another. My plan is to install MySQL on the main HDD but
install/create all the SQL da
Matt W wrote:
Hi Ted,
Heh. :-) This could be many GBs. There's no problem reading rows that
are in RAM (cached by the OS) -- can read over 10,000/second. If
there's enough RAM, the OS will take care of it (you could cat table.MYD
to /dev/null). No ramdisk necessary. :-)
BTW, this is for MySQL's
>Can anyone tell me whether or not some kind of RAID will improve the
>seek/access times during lots of random reads from, say, MyISAM data
>files? I *do not care* about improved [sequential] transfer rates; I
>want the fastest possible random access.
RAID will only help reduce
In the last episode (Feb 20), Matt W said:
> Can anyone tell me whether or not some kind of RAID will improve the
> seek/access times during lots of random reads from, say, MyISAM data
> files? I *do not care* about improved [sequential] transfer rates; I
> want the fastest possible r
lp.
Matt
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 7:24 PM
Subject: RE: Improving seek/access times -- does RAID help?
> Run everything off a ramdisk ;-)
>
> Ted Gifford
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt W
> Sen
Run everything off a ramdisk ;-)
Ted Gifford
-Original Message-
From: Matt W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 5:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Improving seek/access times -- does RAID help?
Hi all,
Can anyone tell me whether or not some kind of RAID will
Hi all,
Can anyone tell me whether or not some kind of RAID will improve the seek/access times
during lots of random reads from, say, MyISAM data files? I *do not care* about
improved [sequential] transfer rates; I want the fastest possible random access.
I'm thinking that RAID won'
You can afterwards the installation specify the path to the data in the "my.cnf"
config file.
Marc.
-Message d'origine-
De : Kirti S. Bajwa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : mercredi 31 décembre 2003 01:08
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : MySQL on RAID server
Hello Li
Hello List:
Here comes a newbie's newbie!!
I want to install MySQL 5.0.0 on a machine with RAID. It has the following
hardware/Software configuration:
DISTRO: RH9
1-Disk which has all the software installed.
2-Disks, which are RAID1 format with one folder "/data"
I plan to u
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 10:33:17AM -0500, Brent Baisley wrote:
>
> Actually, you want to try to match the stripe size to your data size.
> The ideal would be to have a stripe size equal to the size of a record
> in your database. This way the disk needs only one read or write for
> each database
enetwork.com wrote:
Greetings Mysqlians,
Please comment on the validity of my logic:
In setting the RAID(10/2disks) strip size everything I read says you
must
benchmark your particular system. Since that is not an option, my
current
logic is to have a large strip size (1024) with the reason
Greetings Mysqlians,
Please comment on the validity of my logic:
In setting the RAID(10/2disks) strip size everything I read says you must
benchmark your particular system. Since that is not an option, my current
logic is to have a large strip size (1024) with the reasoning
THanks everyone for all your help!
Steve
- Original Message -
From: "Pete Harlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David T-G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "mysql users" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Steve Vernon"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Frida
g files! You can get more speed
from the I/O bottleneck by putting RAID directories on different
physical disks. RAID_TYPE will work on any OS, as long as you have
configured MySQL with --with-raid. For now the only allowed
RAID_TYPE is STRIPED (1 and RAID0 are alias
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 05:44:02AM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> %
> % Does the 2 Gig file size limit on Linux get broken when I have a hardware
> % raid controller?
>
> The limit applies only to ext2 filesystems, and not all of them at that;
> ext3 and reiserfs (and others) can
---
-Original Message-
From: Steve Vernon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 31 October 2003 14:19
To: Peter Lovatt; Mysql List
Subject: Re: Hardware Raid and 2 Gig Limit
Hiya!
Thanks for the help!!!
Do RSync like big files? Or does it prefer smaller
ovatt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steve Vernon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Mysql List"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 12:17 PM
Subject: RE: Hardware Raid and 2 Gig Limit
> Hi
>
> We have a similar challenge
Don't confuse hardware RAID with MySQL RAID. The 2GB file size limit is
a function of the operating system and the file system in use, it has
nothing to do with the disk hardware you have installed.
Your ISP may say you don't need the raid option activated because the
system they
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 31 October 2003 12:00
To: Mysql List
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hardware Raid and 2 Gig Limit
Hiya!
Thanks for the quick reply!!!
But dosen't it make more sense to have 20 0.5 Gig files rather than one 10
Gig file?
I know you can split files, but basi
Hiya!
Thanks for the quick reply!!!
But dosen't it make more sense to have 20 0.5 Gig files rather than one 10
Gig file?
I know you can split files, but basically because we have raid I trust it to
a point. But I would like to make backup's. It costs a lot to have our
server prov
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve --
...and then Steve Vernon said...
%
% Hello,
Hi!
%
% Does the 2 Gig file size limit on Linux get broken when I have a hardware
% raid controller?
The limit applies only to ext2 filesystems, and not all of them at that;
ext3 and reiserfs
Hello,
Does the 2 Gig file size limit on Linux get broken when I have a hardware
raid controller?
My ISP says I don't need the raid option activated on MySQL.
Thanks,
Steve
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:
Hi group,
Does anyone know of a good tutorial on RAID? When used with MySQL.
Thanks,
__
NZEYIMANA Emery Fabrice
NEFA Computing Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 5078 Kigali
Office Phone: +250-51 11 06
Office Fax: +250-50 15 19
Mobile: +250-08517768
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED
]
Subject: RAID, miiror OR replication?
I am wanting to protect myself against future potential hard drive
failures on my database server running version 3.23.49a. Should I try
and set up a RAID, a mirror or would the best solution be to set up
MySQL replication. Any suggestions would be greatly
]
Subject: RAID, miiror OR replication?
I am wanting to protect myself against future potential hard drive
failures on my database server running version 3.23.49a. Should I try
and set up a RAID, a mirror or would the best solution be to set up
MySQL replication. Any suggestions would be greatly
Richard,
If you want to protect against hard drive failures then a RAID setup is
probably the best option. A RAID will ensure that you always have an
up-to-the-instant backup of all of your data in case a drive goes bad;
however, a RAID won'tstop a bug, virus, or error from screwi
On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 14:21, Richard Reina wrote:
> I am wanting to protect myself against future potential hard drive
> failures on my DB server running version 3.23.49a. Should I try and set
> up a RAID, a mirror or would the best solution be to set up MySQL
> replication. Any
I am wanting to protect myself against future potential hard drive
failures on my database server running version 3.23.49a. Should I try
and set up a RAID, a mirror or would the best solution be to set up
MySQL replication. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Richard
--
MySQL
I am wanting to protect myself against future potential hard drive
failures on my DB server running version 3.23.49a. Should I try and set
up a RAID, a mirror or would the best solution be to set up MySQL
replication. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Richard
--
MySQL General
ace, as with any disk
system? Write a 1 byte file and it uses an N byte block on one disk,
plus an N byte parity block on another.
This wholly depends on the RAID subsystem, but better than 80% will need to
either read the entire stripe, or hold off until they're writing the whole
stripe at o
--On Friday, August 22, 2003 1:21 PM -0400 "Lefevre, Steven"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"that is not true. mirroring gives you double the read speed and half
the write speed. RAID5 gives you less than half the write speed."
-
OK, I see how it can give you double the read speed, bu
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I do not think it is true that mirroring gives no performance benefit
(on a
> > well implemented controller). For reads, the raid controller can read
> > either copy of the data, so that effectively two reads can be in
progress
> > at t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card.
>
> > Mirroring just gives you backup, and you lose half your diskspace. It
> offers
> > no performance benefit, and actually the computer might have to work
> harder
> > to make sure the
-Original Message-
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jon Drukman
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 9:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RAID or not?
Lefevre, Steven wrote:
> I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card.
>
> Mirroring just gives you backup, and
> I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card.
> Mirroring just gives you backup, and you lose half your diskspace. It
offers
> no performance benefit, and actually the computer might have to work
harder
> to make sure the drives are in sync.
I do not think it is true that mirror
In the last episode (Aug 21), Jon Drukman said:
> Lefevre, Steven wrote:
> >I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card.
> > Mirroring just gives you backup, and you lose half your diskspace.
> > It offers no performance benefit, and actually the computer might
> > have
Lefevre, Steven wrote:
I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card.
Mirroring just gives you backup, and you lose half your diskspace. It offers
no performance benefit, and actually the computer might have to work harder
to make sure the drives are in sync.
that is not true. mirroring gives you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lefevre, Steven) writes:
> I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card.
> ..
>
> You get better performance than mirroring or regular drive, because
> the data is spread out over your drives. It's not as good as disk
> striping, though.
Ehh. Wrong. That
3Ware makes reasonably priced ATA and SATA RAID-5 cards (IDE, not SCSI). You
can get hot-swappable enclosures so that when a drive fails, you swap it
without shutting down the machine.
We are gradually adding this hardware to our webservers, etc so that we
don't have to rebuild them when a
I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card.
Mirroring just gives you backup, and you lose half your diskspace. It offers
no performance benefit, and actually the computer might have to work harder
to make sure the drives are in sync.
Disk striping makes things *fast*, BUT THERE IS NO PROTECTION
how I set up the RAID?
-Jackson
jackson miller
cold feet creative
615.321.3300 / 800.595.4401
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cold feet presents Emma
the world's easiest email marketing
Learn more @ http://www.myemma.com
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com
gt;
> What is the best way for me to configure RAID?
>
> Here is the kind of load I am talking about:
> Uptime: 1749850 Threads: 44 Questions: 1266402021 Slow queries: 16923
> Opens: 162177 Flush tables: 1 Open tables: 64 Queries per second avg:
> 723.720
These figures are
I like using either raid 0+1.. it really cooks, or if you can'y spare the
disks, raid 1 ...Something pushing that many queries, should probably
be protected from disk failure.
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Jackson Miller wrote:
> I am setting up a dedicated MySQL server with some pretty hea
Defect handling on Scsi disks is done by the drive itself, at a level below
both the RAID controller, the file system, or MySQL caching. The drive,
once it has noticed a defect, flags it as faulty and substitutes a spare
sector from a stock of hidden sectors it keeps. Usually, when it flags
the MySQL data directory
and 1 drive to be InnoDB (possibly raw partition).
What is the best way for me to configure RAID?
Here is the kind of load I am talking about:
Uptime: 1749850 Threads: 44 Questions: 1266402021 Slow queries: 16923
Opens: 162177 Flush tables: 1 Open tables: 64 Queries
and 1 drive to be InnoDB (possibly raw partition).
What is the best way for me to configure RAID?
Here is the kind of load I am talking about:
Uptime: 1749850 Threads: 44 Questions: 1266402021 Slow queries: 16923
Opens: 162177 Flush tables: 1 Open tables: 64 Queries per second avg
In the last episode (Aug 20), Dathan Vance Pattishall said:
> I've notice that when grown defects (bad blocks on the disk caused by
> usage over time) that my dedicated mysql server is adversely
> effected.
Affected how? The grown defect list is usually reserved for blocks
that were discovered to
I've notice that when grown defects (bad blocks on the disk caused by
usage over time) that my dedicated mysql server is adversely effected.
Since the action of Grown defects does not flush the table with a write
lock-that the block marked as bad will effect prior to that block
becoming a grown d
1 - 100 of 210 matches
Mail list logo
