Hi Adam, --- Adam Aube <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >For caching disks:- > >in order of preference for performance > >1)volume(best, unless your data REALLY critical, > then > >go down the list) > >2)raid 1(mirror, very costly) > >3)raid 5 > >4)raid 0(i was surprised when i first heard it, > can't > >quite remember the reason) > > How can RAID0 have worse performance than RAID5? Ok maybe I am wrong, raid 5 is worst, from what henrik said in http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg05451.html. Sorry.
> RAID0 was > designed to optimize disk write performance by > striping writes > across multiple disks. > > I would think that RAID0 would at least outperform > RAID1. raid in squid is for redundancy(if at all needed) only. and the preferred would be mirror/raid 0. pls see http://squid.bilkent.edu.tr/mail-archive/squid-users/200305/0458.html and http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200206/0121.html > > Do you have any benchmark data on this? No I dun. What I gathered is from this mailing list. I mostly based my findings on what Henrik says, which would be one of the most reliable source, being a developer! Do you, for your points above, wrt FOR CACHING operations? Would be most interested! TIA. Just like to say that different RAID systems performs differently for different applications. Why not we move on, knowing that(from the links abv and also http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200206/0121.html ):- 1)use volume for caching disks, 2)else if redundancy needed, use mirror/raid 1. Period. -- Wolf p.s.pls note that i have based my points from what a squid developer, Mr Henrik, had pointed out; The reason being simple, I have great faith in him. Any mistakes in this process is solely mine. > > Adam > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send free SMS from your PC! http://sg.sms.yahoo.com
