Re: RAID Performance Questions
- From: Milo Hyson <milo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:19:38 -0800
On Jan 25, 2007, at 12:15, Chuck Swiger wrote:
Still, you also ought to consider that a 3-disk RAID-5 configuration is very much not ideal from either an efficiency or performance standpoint-- you want more like 5 or 6 drives being used, in which case your performance numbers ought to increase some. This is also somewhat true of the 4-disk RAID-10 config; using 6 or all 8 drives would likely improve performance compared with striping against only two disks.
Unfortunately, I'm a bit limited in terms of equipment and application requirements. For starters, the app specs currently call for two arrays: one for general file-serving and databases, and the other for backups. Due to limited hardware I'm to run both on the same controller. Far from ideal, I know, but it's what I have. Second, I need to keep at least one drive as a hot-spare. Thus, I have seven drives that I somehow need to partition into two groups and maximize performance without sacrificing reliability. Lastly, the RAID controller does not permit more than two drives in a RAID-1 set.
Any suggestions?
--
Milo Hyson
CyberLife Labs
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: RAID Performance Questions
- From: Jeff Mohler
- Re: RAID Performance Questions
- References:
- RAID Performance Questions
- From: Milo Hyson
- Re: RAID Performance Questions
- From: Chuck Swiger
- RAID Performance Questions
- Prev by Date: Re: Is a re-boot req'd after changing 'resolv.conf' ?
- Next by Date: Re: [OT] Does "~" always point to $HOME?
- Previous by thread: Re: RAID Performance Questions
- Next by thread: Re: RAID Performance Questions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|