On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Michael S. Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't know why I'm having such a problem with this. Sigh! I think I got it right this time. > > If I were designing such a service, my choices would be: > > Corrections: > > > > (1) 4 machines, each with 4-disk RAID 0 (fast, but dangerous) > > (2) 4 machines, each with 5-disk RAID 5 (safe, fast reads, but slow > > writes for your file size - also, RAID 5 should be battery backed, > > which adds cost) > > (3) 4 machines, each with 4-disk RAID 10 (will meet workload > > requirement, but won't handle peak load in degraded mode) > > (4) 5 machines, each with 4-disk RAID 10 > > (5) 9 machines, each with 2-disk RAID 1 --Michael _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
