Matthew Jacob([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2001.05.28 09:54:28 +:
>
> Ah. You want to reinvent the drum?
matt,
when i recall it right, someone told me about a paper presented at
usenix about logging to a single disk which is exactly the thing that
would do the job here. it was, i think, discussed in a
I'm struck by the old axiom:
You can have it fast.
You can have it reliable.
You can have it cheap.
But you can only have 2 of the 3.
If you figure out how to get all 3. Call me.
-gordon
On Mon, 28 May 2001, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 04:31:17PM +, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> >
> > Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 19:01:37 -0500 (CDT)
> > From: David Scheidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> [ snip ]
>
> > If you're really interested in database performance, remember "Spindles
> > is good." Spreading your IO load over as many seperate disks, on as
> > many independent IO channels as prac
> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 19:01:37 -0500 (CDT)
> From: David Scheidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[ snip ]
> If you're really interested in database performance, remember "Spindles
> is good." Spreading your IO load over as many seperate disks, on as
> many independent IO channels as practical will impro
On Mon, 28 May 2001, E.B. Dreger wrote:
:
:Of course, with 36 GB drives readily available, maybe I shouldn't worry
:until I have a database larger than 72 GB. ;-)
If you're really interested in database performance, remember "Spindles is
good." Spreading your IO load over as many seperate disks
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 04:31:17PM +, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> Greetings all,
>
> I just had a brainstorm...
>
> I was thinking about database servers with several spindles in a RAID 5
> array. Write performance is inherently disappointing -- which may or may
> not be an issue.
>
> Would it be
> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 17:54:24 +0100
> From: Dominic Marks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[ snip ]
> disc caching. The idea of perhaps caching writes onto a RAID-0 system
I meant caching onto an arbitrary volume, probably using a simple
journalling "filesystem". Personally, a RAID 1 volume would be my
> 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.
>
> I
"E.B. Dreger" schrieb:
>
> Greetings all,
>
> I just had a brainstorm...
>
> I was thinking about database servers with several spindles in a RAID 5
> array. Write performance is inherently disappointing -- which may or may
> not be an issue.
It is. Even RAID 1 is better than RAID 5 _for_da
Hi, (I'm geussing the 'public+spam' bit is standard removal stuff)
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 04:31:17PM +, E.B. Dreger wrote:
>
> array. Write performance is inherently disappointing -- which may or may
In my opinion this is the same as how MFS when used without limitation can
also be a bad
Ah. You want to reinvent the drum?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Greetings all,
I just had a brainstorm...
I was thinking about database servers with several spindles in a RAID 5
array. Write performance is inherently disappointing -- which may or may
not be an issue.
Would it be worth the trouble to design an "intermediate" cache, whereby
data are quickly
12 matches
Mail list logo
