From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 17 21:53:57 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 646BA16A477 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:53:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [IPv6:2001:4070:101:2::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E01C13C448 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:53:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m0HLnTMO005636; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:49:29 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) with ESMTP id m0HLnP8t005633; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:49:28 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:49:25 +0100 (CET) From: Wojciech Puchar To: robert@webtent.com In-Reply-To: <1200605532.7281.74.camel@columbus.webtent.org> Message-ID: <20080117224645.D5606@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <1200602606.7281.48.camel@columbus.webtent.org> <20080117221629.Y5573@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <1200605532.7281.74.camel@columbus.webtent.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: FreeBSD Subject: Re: db performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:53:57 -0000 >> is used)? what is more stupid? whould we vote? > > That was my whole point of showing you the low usage. I take that as a > yes, RAID 1+0 would provide a dramatic difference in speed, thanks! the only adventage of RAID-5 is less "wasted" space than RAID-1. one and the only adventage. write performance is terrible on small writes - exactly what happens on database usage. with today sizes of disks more "wasted" space doesn't make much a problem, as i don't think your database have hundreds of gigabytes. did you look how much disks (no matter what RAID or just devices) are actually used?! use systat