Hi all,
Ummm... Bit confused here, but RAID 1 is not faster, than a single disk.
RAID one is just for 'safety' purposes. Yes, you do have 2 disks, but
in an
ideal world, they will both be synced with one another, and both be
doing
exactly the same thing at the same time.
If you want speed, use R
On Monday 13 September 2004 01.55, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 00:41, Russell Coker wrote:
[reading 2 files from RAID1]
While I really substantiate my assumtption, Russel's right, in theory: in
RAID1, you *do* have 2 disks, so reading 2 independent files *should* be
possible w
On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 00:41, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 23:35, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Do you have benchmark results to support this assertion? Last time I tested
> the performance of software RAID-1 on Linux I was unable to get an
[no cc:s please, thanks]
On Sunday 12 September 2004 16.41, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 23:35, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
> Machines that can handle such an IO load have faster CPUs. So for any
> but the very biggest machines there is no chance of CPU performance being
>
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 23:35, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RAID5 does need more computation than RAID1, so if you have a CPU
> bottleneck RAID5 will always be slower (assuming RAID5 is computed on the
> main CPU.)
raid5: automatically using best checksumming funct
Hello All!
I wondering is someone knows how to add an X-Envelope-To header to all
incoming e-mails which reveal the "real" username even when working with
virtuals.
I tried several apoaches like:
---
# cat /etc/procmailrc
ENV_TO=$1
:0f
* ENV_TO ?? .
| formail -i "X-Envelope-To: $ENV_TO"
:0fE
| f
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004, Andreas John wrote:
> Hi!
>
> 1.) AT8024 is good choice - but it comes without 1000BaseTX interface!
> (netgear I don't know).
yes, it does have ... this is the reason i wish to buy it than another
8024 !
> 2.) Reading you description I assume that you have at the time
>
Hi!
1.) AT8024 is good choice - but it comes without 1000BaseTX interface!
(netgear I don't know). Keeo in mind that you may also "trunk" the two
existring NIC in the servers to the switchs (yes, trunking is an IEEE
protocol). You would have 200Mbit (== 400Mbit FDX) per server even
without gigab
In such case the best you can do is setup some kind of QoS on network
gear and TOS labeling along your network in order to prioritize traffic
and get rid as much as posible of hard flows.
j
Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
On Sunday 12 September 2004 12.41, Leonardo Boselli wrote:
[.
On Sunday 12 September 2004 12.41, Leonardo Boselli wrote:
[...]
> using only one NIC per server is just a
> "clean wiring" consideration.)
I guess the most important (and obvious) consideration is that all VLANs on
the same wire share the same bandwidth. With normal loads, this should be
fine,
Il 12 Sep 2004 alle 12:31 Leonardo Boselli immise in rete
> Just an information:
> i will have a netgear 526T and a AT 8024
> my servers have one a NIC driven by e1000 module, the other by
> 8139too .
> Currently they have two nic each, one with 2 addresses and one with
> other two, connected
Il 11 Sep 2004 alle 21:30 Andreas John immise in rete
> 1.) VLAN is an IEEE Standard. (802.1q).
> But there are two kind of VLAN: tagged VLAN and untagged ones.
> b.) The tagged one are 802.1q. This is what you are looking for. All
Just an information:
i will have a netgear 526T and a AT 8024 ..
12 matches
Mail list logo
