On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 11:47, Greg Spiegelberg wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 11:14, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:26:14PM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
> >>
> >>>My experience has been that once you get past 6 disks, RAID5 is faster
> >>>than RAID1
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 11:14, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:26:14PM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
My experience has been that once you get past 6 disks, RAID5 is faster
than RAID1+0.
Also depends on your filesystem and volume manager. As near as I can
tell, y
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 11:24:16AM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >tell, you do _not_ want to use RAID 5 with Veritas.
> Out of curiosity, why?
What I keep hearing through various back channels is that, if you pay
folks from Veritas to look at your installation, and they see RAID 5,
they suggest y
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 11:14, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:26:14PM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
> >
> > My experience has been that once you get past 6 disks, RAID5 is faster
> > than RAID1+0.
>
> Also depends on your filesystem and volume manager. As near as I can
> tell,
--On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:14:34 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:26:14PM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
My experience has been that once you get past 6 disks, RAID5 is faster
than RAID1+0.
Also depends on your filesystem and volume manager. As
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:26:14PM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
>
> My experience has been that once you get past 6 disks, RAID5 is faster
> than RAID1+0.
Also depends on your filesystem and volume manager. As near as I can
tell, you do _not_ want to use RAID 5 with Veritas.
A
--
Andrew
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Vivek Khera wrote:
> > "sm" == scott marlowe writes:
>
> sm> My experience has been that once you get past 6 disks, RAID5 is faster
> sm> than RAID1+0.
>
> Any opinion on stripe size for the RAID?
That's more determined by what kind of data you're gonna be handling.
> "sm" == scott marlowe writes:
sm> My experience has been that once you get past 6 disks, RAID5 is faster
sm> than RAID1+0.
Any opinion on stripe size for the RAID?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EM
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Vivek Khera wrote:
> I just ran a handful of tests on a 14-disk array on a SCSI hardware
> RAID card.
SNIP
> Has anyone else done similar tests of different RAID levels? What
> were your conclusions?
Yes I have. I had a 6 disk array plus 2 disks inside my machine (this wa
I just ran a handful of tests on a 14-disk array on a SCSI hardware
RAID card.
>From some quickie benchmarks using the bonnie++ benchmark, it appears
that the RAID5 across all 14 disks is a bit faster than RAID50 and
noticeably faster than RAID10...
Sample numbers for a 10Gb file (speed in Kbytes
10 matches
Mail list logo
