On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 05:29:37PM -0500, Chris Wagner wrote: > I would say that RAID 5 is probably overkill for a mail queue.
It's not the mail queue. Its the mail store (maildirs). We have no problems with mail queue performance so far. > Unless ur > mail queue is running hundreds of gigabytes and overloading a single disk, The store is over 60 GB now, and still growing. Will probably reach over 100 GB in a few months. > a > normal single hard drive is sufficient. Definitely not sufficient for us :) > Based on ur graph it looks like ur > queue is under half a gig. What makes you think so? I did mention that those data were just from a random sample. > If you want redundancy for the mail queue then a > RAID 1 (mirroring) will give u everything u need. Mirroring seems a little bit to expensive for us. But we will certainly consider that if someone points me to a comparison that strongly favors mirroring over RAID5 for a similar setup. Simply saying that > RAID 5 is for extremely > high usage like large file servers and stuff. is not enough to make the decision, unfortunately. > Adding RAM to beef up the > file cache can give u a significant speedup (Ur entire queue can be RAM > cache). Unfortunately adding more system RAM to that machine is not an option (at least for now). We are going to add more RAM to the controller, though. > If u still need RAID 5 then I would make the stripe size equal to > average file size / number of data disks up to no more than 32KB stripe. Since avg file size would be something around 2500 bytes, and we have 5 disks, that would give us a 500 byte stripe. I don't think that is even possible. Marcin -- Marcin Owsiany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marcin.owsiany.pl/ GnuPG: 1024D/60F41216 FE67 DA2D 0ACA FC5E 3F75 D6F6 3A0D 8AA0 60F4 1216 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
