From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 3 18:48:24 2005 Return-Path: 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 26E9816A41F for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2005 18:48:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from pi.codefab.com (pi.codefab.com [199.103.21.227]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D8543D46 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2005 18:48:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pi.codefab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EDE65F41; Thu, 3 Nov 2005 13:48:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from pi.codefab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pi.codefab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 38403-09; Thu, 3 Nov 2005 13:48:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (pool-68-161-122-227.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.161.122.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pi.codefab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491BF5C1F; Thu, 3 Nov 2005 13:48:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <436A5B7D.6090408@mac.com> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 13:48:29 -0500 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Francisco References: <0E972CEE334BFE4291CD07E056C76ED807738005@bragi.housing.ufl.edu> <20051103133248.Y60367@zoraida.natserv.net> In-Reply-To: <20051103133248.Y60367@zoraida.natserv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at codefab.com Cc: stable@freebsd.org 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:48:24 -0000 Francisco wrote: > 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). If you're using maildir, that is one of the situations which works pretty well with RAID-5, although RAID-10 is also (always? :-) a good choice. -- -Chuck