Zachariah Mully wrote:
> Patrick Boutilier wrote:
>
>> We have used 3ware cards as well but are now switching to Highpoint
>> RAID cards.
>>
>
> Hopefully you're testing them extensively. I found them, at least the
> last time I used them (RocketRAID?), to be woefully lacking in the linux
> dr
Patrick Boutilier wrote:
> We have used 3ware cards as well but are now switching to Highpoint RAID
> cards.
>
Hopefully you're testing them extensively. I found them, at least the
last time I used them (RocketRAID?), to be woefully lacking in the linux
driver area as well as performance. In
Vincent Fox wrote:
> Jeff Fookson wrote:
>> We are planning to run the mirrors
>> off a 4-port 3ware RAID card even though we're not overly fond of
>> 3ware (we have a fair amount of experience
>> with RAID5 arrays on 3ware cards on our research machines where they
>> perform adequately but
>> n
> but all attempts to simulate
> a client load-pattern are devilishly difficult to get right.
I can atest to this as well.
I created an "imapstresstest" tool a few years back to attempt to stress our
cyrus installs. It attempts to emulate all the main actions of a running
IMAP server like lots
Jeff Fookson wrote:
> We are planning to run the mirrors
> off a 4-port 3ware RAID card even though we're not overly fond of
> 3ware (we have a fair amount of experience
> with RAID5 arrays on 3ware cards on our research machines where they
> perform adequately but
> not more). We are hoping the
Vincent Fox wrote:
>David Lang wrote:
>
>
>>raid 6 allows you to loose any two disks and keep going.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>This is turning into a RAID discussion.
>
>The orginal poster was doing a RAID-5 across 3 disks, and has stopped
>commenting but it's probably because that's all the hardware
David Lang wrote:
>
> raid 6 allows you to loose any two disks and keep going.
>
>
This is turning into a RAID discussion.
The orginal poster was doing a RAID-5 across 3 disks, and has stopped
commenting but it's probably because that's all the hardware he could
scrounge.
I am a staunch memb
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Ian G Batten wrote:
> On 05 Mar 08, at 1549, Simon Matter wrote:
>
>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Ian G Batten wrote:
>>>
software RAID5 is a performance
disaster area at the best of times unless it can take advantage of
intimate knowledge of the intent log in the file
On 05 Mar 08, at 1549, Simon Matter wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Ian G Batten wrote:
>>
>>> software RAID5 is a performance
>>> disaster area at the best of times unless it can take advantage of
>>> intimate knowledge of the intent log in the filesystem (RAID-Z does
>>> this),
>>
>> actually, un
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Ian G Batten wrote:
>
>> software RAID5 is a performance
>> disaster area at the best of times unless it can take advantage of
>> intimate knowledge of the intent log in the filesystem (RAID-Z does
>> this),
>
> actually, unless you have top-notch hardware raid controllers, s
>it takes long enough to rebuild an array with large drives that the
>chances of a second drive failing during the rebuild become noticable.
Worse, the act of rebuilding can prompt a second, marginal disk to fail.
Presumably the mechanics are the head runs through a patch of debris in
an otherwise
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Ian G Batten wrote:
> software RAID5 is a performance
> disaster area at the best of times unless it can take advantage of
> intimate knowledge of the intent log in the filesystem (RAID-Z does
> this),
actually, unless you have top-notch hardware raid controllers, software ra
12 matches
Mail list logo
