Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) writes:On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 08:54:11AM +1100, Alex Samad wrote:most enterprise site don;t use 1TB size disk, if you want performance you go spindles, there might be 8 disks (number pulled from the air -based on raid6 + spares) behind 1TBAnd if you want disk space and are serving across a 1Gbit ethernet link, you don't give a damn about spindles and go for cheap abundant storage, which means SATA. Not everyone is running a database server. Some people just have files. Raid5/6 of a few SATA drives can easily saturate 1Gbit. And for a very small fraction of the cost of SAS drives.1GBit is satturated by a single good disk already. 1GBit is a joke for fast storage.
Erm, not on anything other than a sequential read (and even then, I've never seen a single disk that would actually sustain that across it's whole capacity).
Even raid-5s of significant numbers of disks aren't enormously fast, especially under multiple access. hdparm informs me that the SATA 28+2 spare raid-5 I have will read 170M a second. That would rapidly diminish under any sort of load.
The only thing we've found that'll stand up to real multiuser load (like a mail spool) is raid-10, and enough spindles.
We're beginning to see the requirement for 10GE on busy machines. -- ian
MfG
Goswin