Henrik,
I guess I'll go with RAID0+1 like I did with our mail server. I feel that if
I'm pushing 5K people through this box it really should have some
redundancy. Otherwise it would be out single point of failure. I will
probably build two of these and put them behind a L4 switch. How does
something like the following sound?
DPT Millennium PM3754U2 RAID controller w/ 128M (Maybe 256M)
10x9gig Ultra2 Cheetah in RAID 0+1 (45gig's of Storage)
This box will also be fed by SkyCache.
-j
---
Robert J. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.siscom.net
Looking to outsource news? http://www.newshosting.com
SISCOM Network Administration - President, SISCOM Inc.
Phone: 937-222-8150 FAX: 937-222-8153
-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Nordstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Robert J. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, April 03, 1999 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: Squid & Raid
>Robert J. Adams wrote:
>
>> Just wondering what kind of performance hit I'm going to see if I go with
>> RAID5 on a squid server. From what I've heard RAID5 is a bit slower on
>> writes but faster on reads?
>
>RAID5 is terribly slow on small random writes, which Squid generates a
>lot of. RADI5 is defenitely NOT recommended for a Squid cache
>filesystem. For the log filesystem it might be ok.
>
>My recommendation is to have one cache_dir for each physical drive.
>Provided that the OS makes the filesystem read-only on failure Squid
>should continue to operate properly (can't say that this situation is
>extensively tested, or even tested at all..).
>
>If you need fault tolerant Squid filesystems then you probably have to
>use plain mirroring, which for most people is a bit to expensive for a
>cache..
>
>--
>Henrik Nordstrom
>Spare time Squid hacker
>
>
