From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Nov  3 18:34:47 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: stable@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A68116A41F
	for <stable@freebsd.org>; Thu,  3 Nov 2005 18:34:47 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from francisco@natserv.net)
Received: from zoraida.natserv.net (p65-147.acedsl.com [66.114.65.147])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 395F443D48
	for <stable@freebsd.org>; Thu,  3 Nov 2005 18:34:47 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from francisco@natserv.net)
Received: from localhost (localhost.natserv.net [127.0.0.1])
	by zoraida.natserv.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38E197DEF;
	Thu,  3 Nov 2005 13:34:46 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 13:34:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Francisco <francisco@natserv.net>
X-X-Sender: fran@zoraida.natserv.net
To: Brad Knowles <brad@stop.mail-abuse.org>
In-Reply-To: <p06200716bf78aa876114@[10.0.1.210]>
Message-ID: <20051103133248.Y60367@zoraida.natserv.net>
References: <0E972CEE334BFE4291CD07E056C76ED807738005@bragi.housing.ufl.edu>
	<p06200716bf78aa876114@[10.0.1.210]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: stable@freebsd.org, Will Saxon <WillS@housing.ufl.edu>
Subject: Re: Disk 100% busy
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:34:47 -0000

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Brad Knowles wrote:

> 	Note that RAID-1 is the second worst-case for mail server performance 
> -- it accelerates reads (if you have mirror load-balancing), but all writes 
> are required to be held until complete on both disks.  The only worse case 
> would be RAID-5, where you have to write (or re-write) an entire RAID block 
> at once, plus the parity information.

Coming late into the thread...
What is a good raid level for a maildir IMAP server? RAID 10 (or 0+1 as 
others call it).