On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Chris Picton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 09:09 -0400, John Drescher wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Alan Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, John Drescher wrote: >> > >> >> BTW, I would never use raid0 or LVM (without every PV being raided) >> >> for backup data that I cared about. >> > >> > Spooled data isn't exactly worth keeping. After a bacula restart the >> > contents of those directories are useless anyway. >> > >> I believe the user was considering putting his disk volumes on a raid >> 0 ( or disk spanning lvm) because his raid5 write speed was too slow. >> >> John > > Just to report back: > > I have decided to go with software raid 5, with ext3 > > Hardware raid 5 (even though it is proper battery backed hardware raid) > was too slow (I got a maximum of 60 MB/s throughput) > I believe this is a driver issue. Specifically the driver not using the cache in write mode. I have seen these kinds of problems with 3ware cards as well on some linux message boards as well.
Either way software raid under linux on a modern machine is a good solution and I recommend it. Thanks for reporting back. John ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
