..@be-mobile.be> wrote:
>>
>> We also have 4-disk nodes, and we use the following layout:
>> 2 x OS + Commit in RAID 1
>> 2 x Data disk in RAID 0
>>
>> This gives us the advantage we never have to reinstall the node when a
>> drive crashes.
>
RAID 0
>>
>> This gives us the advantage we never have to reinstall the node when a drive
>> crashes.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Pieter
>>
>>
>> From: Ran User [mailto:ranuse...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: dinsdag 30 oktober 2012 4:33
>> T
s us the advantage we never have to reinstall the node when a
> drive crashes.
>
> Kind regards,
> Pieter
>
>
> *From:* Ran User [mailto:ranuse...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* dinsdag 30 oktober 2012 4:33
> *To:* user@cassandra.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: idea drive layou
ieter
>
>
> From: Ran User [mailto:ranuse...@gmail.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 30 oktober 2012 4:33
> To: user@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: Re: idea drive layout - 4 drives + RAID question
>
> Have you considered running RAID 10 for the data drives to improve MTBF?
>
:33
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: idea drive layout - 4 drives + RAID question
Have you considered running RAID 10 for the data drives to improve MTBF?
On one hand Cassandra is handling redundancy issues, on the other hand,
reducing the frequency of dealing with failed nodes is
Have you considered running RAID 10 for the data drives to improve MTBF?
On one hand Cassandra is handling redundancy issues, on the other
hand, reducing the frequency of dealing with failed nodes
is attractive if cheap (switching RAID levels to 10).
We have no experience with software RAID (have
I would generally recommend 1 drive for OS and commit log and 3 drive raid
0 for data. The raid does give you good performance benefit, and it can be
convenient to have the OS on a side drive for configuration ease and better
MTBF.
-Tupshin
On Oct 29, 2012 8:56 PM, "Ran User" wrote:
> I was hopi
I was hoping to achieve approx. 2x IO (write and read) performance via RAID
0 (by accepting a higher MTBF).
Do believe the performance gains of RAID0 are much lower and/or are not
worth it vs the increased server failure rate?
>From my understanding, RAID 10 would achieve the read performance ben
I'm not sure whether the raid 0 gets you anything other than headaches
should one of the drives fail. You can already distribute the
individual Cassandra column families on different drives by just
setting up symlinks to the individual folders.
2012/10/30 Ran User :
> For a server with 4 drive slo
For a server with 4 drive slots only, I'm thinking:
either:
- OS (1 drive)
- Commit Log (1 drive)
- Data (2 drives, software raid 0)
vs
- OS + Data (3 drives, software raid 0)
- Commit Log (1 drive)
or something else?
also, if I can spare the wasted storage, would RAID 10 for cassandra data
10 matches
Mail list logo
