On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 11:26 AM, John Drescher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Could you specify the hardware raid you are using: name, model, version#? Thanks, Lucas ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
