From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 29 18:38:20 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A18916A41F for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:38:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from njt@ayvali.org) Received: from sanddollar.geekisp.com (sanddollar.geekisp.com [204.89.131.97]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE5BC43D49 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:38:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from njt@ayvali.org) Received: (qmail 5627 invoked by uid 1003); 29 Nov 2005 18:38:18 -0000 Received: from clam.int.geekisp.com (HELO clam.geekisp.com) (192.168.4.38) by mail.geekisp.com with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 29 Nov 2005 18:38:18 -0000 Received: from clam.geekisp.com (njt@localhost.geekisp.com [127.0.0.1]) by clam.geekisp.com (8.13.3/8.12.11) with ESMTP id jATIcICP014178 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:38:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from njt@localhost) by clam.geekisp.com (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id jATIcHXY028718 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:38:17 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: clam.geekisp.com: njt set sender to njt@ayvali.org using -f Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:38:17 -0500 From: "N.J. Thomas" To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20051129183817.GZ15171@ayvali.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Subject: busy web server: logs on separate disks? 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: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:38:20 -0000 Given a webserver under moderately high load (where the httpd log files grow at the rate of 400MB per day) and two disks, which of the following is a better option: 1. put the OS and everything on disk 1, and put the logs on disk2. 2. put everything on one drive and mirror the disks With #1, you get max performance since the second disk is pretty much a write only disk. The downside is that in case the root disk crashes, your server goes down. With #2, you get the overhead and performance of two writes instead of one, but a disk crash doesn't hurt as much -- you just run in degraded mode until it is replaced. Thomas -- N.J. Thomas njt@ayvali.org Etiamsi occiderit me, in ipso sperabo