Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:19:38 -0800
From:      Milo Hyson <milo@cyberlifelabs.com>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: RAID Performance Questions
Message-ID:  <8A3D6CC2-5BB8-4A3F-9D72-C37383186C34@cyberlifelabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <0C1E63BE-0E2B-4ABC-952C-3EDC95CF8D8A@mac.com>
References:  <25E0702D-C3A3-4B6B-BC56-D1BC5C1347F5@cyberlifelabs.com> <0C1E63BE-0E2B-4ABC-952C-3EDC95CF8D8A@mac.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8A3D6CC2-5BB8-4A3F-9D72-C37383186C34>