On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Fagyal Csongor wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> I am putting in a separate disk for our MySQL (4.1.7) server. I have
> some MyISAM, some InnoDB tables. Lots of reads, lots of writes (mostly
> atomic ones, insert/update one row), a few million rows per table,
> approx. 100-400 queries per
Which SATA drive works under LINUX O/S?
Kirti
-Original Message-
From: Larry Lowry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 4:06 PM
To: Fagyal Csongor; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Low-end SATA vs. SCSI
For cost reasons I use SATA. Does the machine already
have a
OTECTED]>
Cc: "Fagyal Csongor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Low-end SATA vs. SCSI
If you are talking about the WD Raptor's -- stay away. Out of 6 we
used, 3 failed. Do a few googles and you'll hear
Gary Richardson wrote:
If you are talking about the WD Raptor's -- stay away. Out of 6 we
used, 3 failed. Do a few googles and you'll hear the same from other
users.
On the other hand, the do fly. Raid10 them them on a 3ware 9500 and
you'll be amazed.
I agree on the 3Ware... Exceptionnal cards.
To
om: "Fagyal Csongor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 12:03 PM
> Subject: Low-end SATA vs. SCSI
>
> > Hi List,
> >
> > I am putting in a separate disk for our MySQL (4.1.7) server. I have
> > some
t: Friday, November 12, 2004 12:03 PM
Subject: Low-end SATA vs. SCSI
Hi List,
I am putting in a separate disk for our MySQL (4.1.7) server. I have
some MyISAM, some InnoDB tables. Lots of reads, lots of writes (mostly
atomic ones, insert/update one row), a few million rows per table,
approx. 100-
Hi List,
I am putting in a separate disk for our MySQL (4.1.7) server. I have
some MyISAM, some InnoDB tables. Lots of reads, lots of writes (mostly
atomic ones, insert/update one row), a few million rows per table,
approx. 100-400 queries per second.
What would you say is better (with respect
