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>