On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:40, Jason Lim wrote: > > Why not go the whole hog and put all the drives in a RAID-1 and have 4 > > copies > > > of all your data? > > Err.. that would reduce usable space all the way down to 40Gs, and provide > the worst write performance in history, wouldn't it? Okay I know
It shouldn't be any worse write performance than RAID-5, and read performance should be good! > > For a mail server, database server, or other machine where you can only > > have > > > one copy of the data you want to be really paranoid about the drives. > > Like in most hosting environments, each server is "self contained". That > is, each account's services (www,ftp,mail,etc.) are on the same server as > the account. While it would be ideal to separate them all out onto > specialized servers, it isn't too practical (and we don't load the servers > that high... 50 small-mid sized accounts per server). Instead of having one server for 50 accounts which does everything, why not have different servers for different services? Then you could have three web servers for several thousand domains instead of getting a new server for every 50... -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
