Luke Lonergan wrote:
David,
now hot-swap may not be supported on all interface types, that may be what
you have run into, but with SCSI or SATA you should be able to hot-swap
with the right controller.
That's actually the problem - Linux hot swap is virtually non-functional for
SCS
Luke Lonergan wrote:
Note that host-based SCSI raid cards from LSI, Adaptec, Intel, Dell, HP
and others have proven to have worse performance than a single disk
drive in many cases, whether for RAID0 or RAID5. In most circumstances
This is my own experience. Running a LSI MegaRAID in pure pass
David,
> now hot-swap may not be supported on all interface types, that may be what
> you have run into, but with SCSI or SATA you should be able to hot-swap
> with the right controller.
That's actually the problem - Linux hot swap is virtually non-functional for
SCSI. You can write into the
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005, Luke Lonergan wrote:
Recently, I helped a company named DeepData to improve their dbms
performance, which was a combination of moving them to software RAID50
on Linux and getting them onto Bizgres. The disk subsystem sped up on
the same hardware (minus the HW RAID card) by
Frank,
> You definitely DO NOT want to do RAID 5 on a database server. That
> is probably the worst setup you could have, I've seen it have lower
> performance than just a single hard disk.
I've seen that on RAID0 and RAID10 as well.
This is more about the quality and modernity of the R
Hi,
b= Once a HD failure takes place, you suffer a _permenent_ performance
drop, even after the automatic volume rebuild, until you take the entire
RAID 50 array off line, reinitialize it, and rebuild it from scratch.
Where did you get that crazy idea? When you have replaced the drive and the
At 04:54 PM 12/24/2005, David Lang wrote:
raid 5 is bad for random writes as you state, but how does it do for
sequential writes (for example data mining where you do a large
import at one time, but seldom do other updates). I'm assuming a
controller with a reasonable amount of battery-backed
David Lang wrote:
raid 5 is bad for random writes as you state, but how does it do for
sequential writes (for example data mining where you do a large import
at one time, but seldom do other updates). I'm assuming a controller
with a reasonable amount of battery-backed cache.
Random write per
At 04:42 PM 12/24/2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
If you've got the budget or are dealing with small enough physical
storage needs, by all means use RAID 10. OTOH, if you are dealing
with large enterprise class apps like Sarbanes Oxley compliance,
medical and/or insurance, etc, etc, the storage
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005, Ron wrote:
At 02:50 PM 12/24/2005, Frank Wiles wrote:
Juan Casero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry folks. I had a couple of glasses of wine as I wrote this.
> Anyway I originally wanted the box to have more than two drives so I
> could do RAID 5 but that is going to cos
If you've got the budget or are dealing with small enough physical
storage needs, by all means use RAID 10. OTOH, if you are dealing
with large enterprise class apps like Sarbanes Oxley compliance,
medical and/or insurance, etc, etc, the storage needs can get so large
that RAID 10 for ever
At 02:50 PM 12/24/2005, Frank Wiles wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:31:54 -0500
Juan Casero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry folks. I had a couple of glasses of wine as I wrote this.
> Anyway I originally wanted the box to have more than two drives so I
> could do RAID 5 but that is going to co
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:31:54 -0500
Juan Casero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry folks. I had a couple of glasses of wine as I wrote this.
> Anyway I originally wanted the box to have more than two drives so I
> could do RAID 5 but that is going to cost too much. Also, contrary
> to my statemen
13 matches
Mail list logo
