From owner-freebsd-database@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 21 12:23:24 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7915E16A41F; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:23:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from uzi@bmby.com) Received: from dev.bmby.co.il (l192-114-46-204.broadband.actcom.net.il [192.114.46.204]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B8C243D46; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:23:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from uzi@bmby.com) Received: from [192.168.0.2] ([192.168.0.2]) by dev.bmby.co.il (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j7LCNRPS018782; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:23:27 +0300 Message-ID: <43087FFE.9070401@bmby.com> Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:22:06 +0200 From: Uzi Klein Organization: B.M.B.Y Software Systems Ltd. User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Uzi Klein References: <43086205.8060307@bmby.com> <4308771D.8070502@bmby.co.il> In-Reply-To: <4308771D.8070502@bmby.co.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-database@freebsd.org, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD hardware solution for a database server X-BeenThere: freebsd-database@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Database use and development under FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:23:24 -0000 Stuart Cianos wrote: > Hi Uzi - > > That is a decent configuration for a variety of tasks. What type of > speed issues are you seeing: is it limited to a couple of queries? How > many transactions are you running in a given time period? Have you > optimized the indexes on your tables for your particular tasks and/or > operations? mysql> \s -------------- mysql Ver 14.7 Distrib 4.1.13, for portbld-freebsd5.4 (i386) using 4.3 Connection id: 16931 Current database: ******* Current user: ******* SSL: Not in use Current pager: more Using outfile: '' Using delimiter: ; Server version: 4.1.12-log Protocol version: 10 Connection: Localhost via UNIX socket Server characterset: latin1 Db characterset: latin1 Client characterset: latin1 Conn. characterset: latin1 UNIX socket: /tmp/mysql.sock Uptime: 3 days 2 hours 30 min 38 sec Threads: 22 Questions: 1070775 Slow queries: 356 Opens: 64745 Flush tables: 1 Open tables: 256 Queries per second avg: 3.992 -------------- > > If you copy your configuration file and post it to the list (make sure > you remove any sensitive info like usernames or passwords, if you store > that type of thing in there) we might be able to help you a bit more. Server is a Proliant DL380 G4 (dual Xeon 3.2, 2 GB ram) www# uname -v FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE-p6 #4: Mon Aug 1 17:26:05 UTC 2005 mook@server.com:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/WWW www# cat /boot/loader.conf kern.maxdsiz="1073741824" kern.dfldsiz="1073741824" kern.maxssiz="1073741824" from my.cnf : # The MySQL server [mysqld] port = 3306 socket = /tmp/mysql.sock skip-locking key_buffer = 256M max_allowed_packet = 1M table_cache = 256 sort_buffer_size = 1M read_buffer_size = 1M read_rnd_buffer_size = 4M myisam_sort_buffer_size = 64M thread_cache = 8 query_cache_size= 16M # Try number of CPU's*2 for thread_concurrency thread_concurrency = 8 > If you haven't tuned your config file for your particular configuration, > then this can also result in performance not being up to par. Ensure > that your kernel is compiled for SMP capability and that your MySQL is > compiled with optimization ON for maximum throughput. While the > optimization doesn't make a huge difference in the short run, millions > of transactions later a couple of miliseconds here and miliseconds there > add up to real time. Kernel is compiled with SMP support MySQL compiled with: WITH_PROC_SCOPE_PTH=yes BUILD_OPTIMIZED=yes BUILD_STATIC=yes > > RAID 0/1 is ideal, although RAID 5 is very sufficient for most all > purposes in this case. If we were running Oracle or Sybase, then > different RAID configurations suit different storage requirements, i.e. > RAID 5 for the table data storage and RAID 0/1 for the transaction logs. > There reasons for this get fairly technical, but if you are interested > in the reasons behind this you can google the topic. MySQL doesn't have > such demanding performance tuning requirements. That what my original question meant to be: What are the minimum/recommended system requirements (*hardware* wise) for a heavy loaded database server. Thanks, Uzi From owner-freebsd-database@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 21 12:41:31 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8471616A41F; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:41:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from uzi@bmby.com) Received: from dev.bmby.co.il (l192-114-46-204.broadband.actcom.net.il [192.114.46.204]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9706043D45; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:41:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from uzi@bmby.com) Received: from [192.168.0.2] ([192.168.0.2]) by dev.bmby.co.il (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j7LCfdPS024065; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:41:39 +0300 Message-ID: <43088442.7000704@bmby.com> Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:40:18 +0200 From: Uzi Klein Organization: B.M.B.Y Software Systems Ltd. User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jmc References: <040f01c5a4b9$f5d2dff0$0700a8c0@uzi> <6863f0c905081906061290c642@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6863f0c905081906061290c642@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-database@freebsd.org, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD hardware solution for a database server X-BeenThere: freebsd-database@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Database use and development under FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:41:31 -0000 jmc wrote: > For the best database-write performance on the DL380G4, make sure you > have the Battery-Backed Write Cache (BBWC) option. Never heard of it. I'd take it as a hardware setup in BIOS? (The server is in co-location, i have no physical access to it but i can explain ISP sys-admin what to do if needed) > The more spindles you have, the better. Are you using all 6 drive > bays in the 380? Make sure they're all Ultra320 drives. 15K will > give the best performance, but the 10K drives aren't too shabby. > RAID0 will give the best performance, but it's not redundant. Next is > RAID1, then RAID5 or ADG. I have 5 drives 36 GB Ultra320 15K: 2 mirrored drives mounted as / 3 RAID 5 drives mounted as /var www# df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/da0s1a 33G 4.7G 26G 16% / devfs 1.0K 1.0K 0B 100% /dev /dev/da1s1d 62G 9.5G 47G 17% /var > You might also try a DL385 (dual socket Opteron) or DL585 (quad socket > Opteron) which will give you either 4 or 8 procs (if they are dual > core). Are you suggesting AMD based boxes outperforms Intel based machines? That's what I'm really interested in... I know it's time for a dedicated fast database server. If i optimized my database and hardware settings, i could gain months, not more. The question is upgrade to what (Assuming my DL380 isn't enough) Thanks, Uzi P.S - Please CC me the replies as I'm not subscribed. From owner-freebsd-database@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 21 19:15:38 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC06216A41F for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:15:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jcagle@gmail.com) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.197]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6709C43D46 for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:15:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jcagle@gmail.com) Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id r35so848167rna for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:15:36 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=N9AVhfn1WFLBCvAWVw7czBGm6a8u7RhrGnM5s9hEfKDWH/aSwRqdkHoS9AY0FU0wOpeFJI/SUcUs02a989mqEySDGekvHMCKrqvJ5ct+UU5yyPUCfB8wdYjhEBqetTB5ISKGt9NZ3BjdJ2WKdc9Yn9FPL1skuYMUcbWeW59XwPg= Received: by 10.38.90.57 with SMTP id n57mr448344rnb; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.90.20 with HTTP; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <6863f0c9050821121520d2b076@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:15:36 -0500 From: jmc To: Uzi Klein In-Reply-To: <43088442.7000704@bmby.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <040f01c5a4b9$f5d2dff0$0700a8c0@uzi> <6863f0c905081906061290c642@mail.gmail.com> <43088442.7000704@bmby.com> Cc: freebsd-database@freebsd.org, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD hardware solution for a database server X-BeenThere: freebsd-database@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Database use and development under FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:15:39 -0000 On 8/21/05, Uzi Klein wrote: >=20 > jmc wrote: > > For the best database-write performance on the DL380G4, make sure you > > have the Battery-Backed Write Cache (BBWC) option. >=20 > Never heard of it. I'd take it as a hardware setup in BIOS? > (The server is in co-location, i have no physical access to it but i can > explain ISP sys-admin what to do if needed) It's an optional hardware module with 128MB of cache that survives power outages (which is key when using it as a write cache). However, if you have the DL380G4 with the SAS P600 controller, it already has 256MB of BBWC built in. > > The more spindles you have, the better. Are you using all 6 drive > > bays in the 380? Make sure they're all Ultra320 drives. 15K will > > give the best performance, but the 10K drives aren't too shabby. > > RAID0 will give the best performance, but it's not redundant. Next is > > RAID1, then RAID5 or ADG. >=20 > I have 5 drives 36 GB Ultra320 15K: >=20 > 2 mirrored drives mounted as / > 3 RAID 5 drives mounted as /var >=20 > www# df -h > Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on > /dev/da0s1a 33G 4.7G 26G 16% / > devfs 1.0K 1.0K 0B 100% /dev > /dev/da1s1d 62G 9.5G 47G 17% /var >=20 > > You might also try a DL385 (dual socket Opteron) or DL585 (quad socket > > Opteron) which will give you either 4 or 8 procs (if they are dual > > core). >=20 > Are you suggesting AMD based boxes outperforms Intel based machines? > That's what I'm really interested in... I can't really say that. It all depends on the application. If FreeBSD had NUMA support, then the Opteron's architecture would have a big advantage for memory-intensive applications. From owner-freebsd-database@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 23 01:19:58 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4655D16A41F; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:19:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from decibel@decibel.org) Received: from flake.decibel.org (flake.decibel.org [67.100.216.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E184743D45; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:19:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from decibel@decibel.org) Received: by flake.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id BF30D152AE; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:19:54 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:19:54 -0500 From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: Uzi Klein Message-ID: <20050823011954.GM17203@decibel.org> References: <040f01c5a4b9$f5d2dff0$0700a8c0@uzi> <6863f0c905081906061290c642@mail.gmail.com> <43088442.7000704@bmby.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43088442.7000704@bmby.com> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.11-RELEASE-p10 i386 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: freebsd-database@freebsd.org, jmc , freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD hardware solution for a database server X-BeenThere: freebsd-database@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Database use and development under FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:19:58 -0000 On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 03:40:18PM +0200, Uzi Klein wrote: > 2 mirrored drives mounted as / > 3 RAID 5 drives mounted as /var RAID5 pretty much sucks for databases that do anything more than 1-5% writes. > Are you suggesting AMD based boxes outperforms Intel based machines? > That's what I'm really interested in... At least with PostgreSQL they do, by a large margin. > I know it's time for a dedicated fast database server. > If i optimized my database and hardware settings, i could gain months, > not more. > The question is upgrade to what (Assuming my DL380 isn't enough) Keep in mind that a poorly designed app will completely kill you once you try and scale past a certain level. Also, I've heard that PostgreSQL tends to do better on complex queries than MySQL if migrating is an option. Might be worth looking at. Note that the out-of-the-box config for PostgreSQL is appropriate for like a 486, so you'd need to do some tweaking. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel@decibel.org Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: "Where do you want to go today?" Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?" FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?" From owner-freebsd-database@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 23 06:42:49 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88BE316A41F; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 06:42:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from uzi@bmby.com) Received: from dev.bmby.co.il (l192-114-46-204.broadband.actcom.net.il [192.114.46.204]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0E0943D46; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 06:42:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from uzi@bmby.com) Received: from [192.168.0.2] ([192.168.0.2]) by dev.bmby.co.il (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j7N6gpPS010607; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:42:51 +0300 Message-ID: <430AD329.4090601@bmby.com> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:41:29 +0200 From: Uzi Klein Organization: B.M.B.Y Software Systems Ltd. User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Jim C. Nasby" References: <040f01c5a4b9$f5d2dff0$0700a8c0@uzi> <6863f0c905081906061290c642@mail.gmail.com> <43088442.7000704@bmby.com> <20050823011954.GM17203@decibel.org> In-Reply-To: <20050823011954.GM17203@decibel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-database@freebsd.org, jmc , freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD hardware solution for a database server X-BeenThere: freebsd-database@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Database use and development under FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 06:42:49 -0000 Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 03:40:18PM +0200, Uzi Klein wrote: > >>2 mirrored drives mounted as / >>3 RAID 5 drives mounted as /var > > > RAID5 pretty much sucks for databases that do anything more than 1-5% > writes. would you suggest RAID 0+1 instead? -Uzi From owner-freebsd-database@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 23 14:41:31 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6335916A41F; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:41:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from decibel@decibel.org) Received: from flake.decibel.org (flake.decibel.org [67.100.216.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0276F43D45; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:41:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from decibel@decibel.org) Received: by flake.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 37C471529B; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:41:30 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:41:30 -0500 From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: Uzi Klein Message-ID: <20050823144129.GE43820@decibel.org> References: <040f01c5a4b9$f5d2dff0$0700a8c0@uzi> <6863f0c905081906061290c642@mail.gmail.com> <43088442.7000704@bmby.com> <20050823011954.GM17203@decibel.org> <430AD329.4090601@bmby.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <430AD329.4090601@bmby.com> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.11-RELEASE-p10 i386 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: freebsd-database@freebsd.org, jmc , freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD hardware solution for a database server X-BeenThere: freebsd-database@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Database use and development under FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:41:31 -0000 On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 09:41:29AM +0200, Uzi Klein wrote: > Jim C. Nasby wrote: > >On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 03:40:18PM +0200, Uzi Klein wrote: > > > >>2 mirrored drives mounted as / > >>3 RAID 5 drives mounted as /var > > > > > >RAID5 pretty much sucks for databases that do anything more than 1-5% > >writes. > > would you suggest RAID 0+1 instead? I'd suggest whichever one is a stripe of mirrors (you don't want a mirror of 2 stripe sets). -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel@decibel.org Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: "Where do you want to go today?" Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?" FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?" From owner-freebsd-database@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 23 14:51:59 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A03E016A41F; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:51:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from david@elvis.mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6561B43D46; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:51:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from david@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1061) id 46E315C8E9; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 07:51:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 07:51:59 -0700 From: David Drum To: "Jim C. Nasby" Message-ID: <20050823145159.GB65857@elvis.mu.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Drum , "Jim C. Nasby" , Uzi Klein , freebsd-database@freebsd.org, jmc , freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org References: <040f01c5a4b9$f5d2dff0$0700a8c0@uzi> <6863f0c905081906061290c642@mail.gmail.com> <43088442.7000704@bmby.com> <20050823011954.GM17203@decibel.org> <430AD329.4090601@bmby.com> <20050823144129.GE43820@decibel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050823144129.GE43820@decibel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-database@freebsd.org, Uzi Klein , jmc , freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD hardware solution for a database server X-BeenThere: freebsd-database@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Database use and development under FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:51:59 -0000 Quoth Jim C. Nasby: > I'd suggest whichever one is a stripe of mirrors (you don't want a > mirror of 2 stripe sets). RAID 1+0 (also incorrectly referred to as "10") is a stripe of mirrors. RAID 0+1 is a mirror of stripes. Jim is right; the difference is subtle yet important when one or more disks fail. Regards, David Drum david@mu.org -- "Penultimate." Ooh! Second-best word ever!--Frazz From owner-freebsd-database@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 23 18:09:03 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A94B616A41F; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:09:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from smtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk (smtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.213.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23A3F43D48; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:09:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from [82.41.37.55] ([82.41.37.55]) by smtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:09:48 +0100 Message-ID: <430B663C.2040705@dial.pipex.com> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:09:00 +0100 From: Alex Zbyslaw User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-GB; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050530 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, pl MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org References: <040f01c5a4b9$f5d2dff0$0700a8c0@uzi> <6863f0c905081906061290c642@mail.gmail.com> <43088442.7000704@bmby.com> <20050823011954.GM17203@decibel.org> <430AD329.4090601@bmby.com> <20050823144129.GE43820@decibel.org> <20050823145159.GB65857@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <20050823145159.GB65857@elvis.mu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Aug 2005 18:09:48.0164 (UTC) FILETIME=[D92E0440:01C5A80D] Cc: jmc , freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD hardware solution for a database server X-BeenThere: freebsd-database@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Database use and development under FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:09:03 -0000 David Drum wrote: >Quoth Jim C. Nasby: > > > >>I'd suggest whichever one is a stripe of mirrors (you don't want a >>mirror of 2 stripe sets). >> >> > >RAID 1+0 (also incorrectly referred to as "10") is a stripe of mirrors. >RAID 0+1 is a mirror of stripes. >Jim is right; the difference is subtle yet important when one or more disks fail. > > This site has a good explanation: http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/levels/ Presumably something like RAID 50 would be an improvement too. --Alex