From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Aug 26 20:14:50 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE2EC16A4CF
	for <isp@freebsd.org>; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:14:50 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sccmmhc92.asp.att.net (sccmmhc92.asp.att.net [204.127.203.212])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 842C243D68
	for <isp@freebsd.org>; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:14:50 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from josh@tcbug.org)
Received: from [10.0.0.10] (12-218-40-24.client.mchsi.com[12.218.40.24])
          by sccmmhc92.asp.att.net (sccmmhc92) with ESMTP
          id <20040826201449m9200830fpe>; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:14:49 +0000
From: Josh Paetzel <josh@tcbug.org>
To: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:14:15 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.1
References: <GMEEINAOJAINFLGLEJNFCEODCJAA.mitch@bitblock.com>
	<412E35B2.7080003@mac.com>
In-Reply-To: <412E35B2.7080003@mac.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200408261514.15896.josh@tcbug.org>
cc: isp@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Performance RAID setup...
X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Services Providers <freebsd-isp.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-isp>,
	<mailto:freebsd-isp-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-isp>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-isp@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-isp-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-isp>,
	<mailto:freebsd-isp-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:14:51 -0000

On Thursday 26 August 2004 14:10, you wrote:
> Mitch (bitblock) wrote:
> [ ... ]
>
> > One floating consideration is the hard drive configuration and
> > the relative performance.
> >
> > I could go with 6 73GB 15000 RPM drives in two RAID 5 sets, or I
> > could go with 6 146GB 10000RPM drives in RAID mirrors.
> >
> > The goal is to provide a NFS / SAMBA server for 4 - 20
> > application servers.
> >
> > Anyone have any value for dollar comments?
>
> Unless your volumes are read-only, or close to it, RAID-10 (or
> "-1,0") will give you significantly better write performance than
> RAID-5.  You might also give small SAN devices a thought; in
> particular, the Xserve RAID box has a very good price/performance
> point.
>
> I don't have experience with the SRCU42L SCSI controller, so you
> might want to do a search about it and FreeBSD, and/or ask your
> vendor.

Of course the Xserve RAID is IDE drives only to the best of my 
knowledge. ;)

-- 
Thanks,

Josh Paetzel