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" <ranuse...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 benefits > of RAID 0, but not the write benefits. I'm also considering RAID 10 to > maximize server IO performance. > > Currently, we're working with 1 CF. > > > Thank you > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Timmy Turner <timm.t...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> 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 <ranuse...@gmail.com>: >> > 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 >> > improve read performance and have no effect on write performance? >> > >> > Thank you! >> > >
