> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 19:49:40 +0200
> From: Christoph Sold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> My gut feel is that this would be more trouble than it's worth, would
>> not net any overall performance*reliability (expressed as a
>> product) gain, and that one might actually realize a p*r decrease.
>
> IMHO it would speed up your DB significantly to have it a) run on a RAID
> 10 array and b) have it run on the raw disk. Two layers of lag reduced
> (well, for reads it is possibly only one layer).
RAID 1+0 is what I use... but I was thinking of scalibility. In a five-
drive array (using one as a hot spare), RAID 1+0 has 67% the capacity of
RAID 5. More expensive per megabyte, but handles more db ops.
However, the numbers become less favorable with bigger RAID 1+0 arrays.
Also, intermediate caching *does not* inherently defeat the purpose of
RAID. IO could be cached to a RAID 1 volume, then transferred to the RAID
5 volume... my question was if it was worth the hassle.
Of course, with 36 GB drives readily available, maybe I shouldn't worry
until I have a database larger than 72 GB. ;-)
Eddy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc.
EverQuick Internet Division
Phone: (316) 794-8922
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.
These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT
send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, or you are likely to be blocked.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
