Re: Finding the Bottleneck
Yeah.. they still make 15Gb drives. I think they still make 10Gbs but I'm
Concerning the drives, since most of these are dedicated servers, they
main way we can differenciate (sp.? plz correct me if wrong) is to provide
different amounts of ram, cpu mhz, disk space, bandwidth, etc. Actually
15Gb is the smallest drive we offer. Most are in the range of 30-40Gbs. We
will probably be increasing these numbers soon to reflect the market
BTW we also thought about buying 30Gb drives and partitioning them so that
only 15Gb is usable, but with the advent of partition resizing proggies
(and they are pretty stable now too), we can't do that.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Coker" <email@example.com>
To: "Jason Lim" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
On Monday 11 June 2001 10:52, you wrote:
> These 15G drives are new, or they wouldn't be ata100 ;-)
I didn't know that they still made such small drives. The major stores
in Amsterdam haven't sold such drives for over a year.
> Only reason we don't get 45 or 50G drives all the time is that not all
> customers need that amount of space. They pay for what they get.
When you say "they pay for what they get" are you saying that they are
trying to save money by buying tiny drives, or is this some sort of
encouragement for the customers to pay you more management fees?
If the former then you should compare the prices and see how little the
difference is. If the latter then try and sell them on the
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Russell Coker" <email@example.com>
> To: "Rich Puhek" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: "Jason Lim" <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 1:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
> On Saturday 09 June 2001 01:11, Rich Puhek wrote:
> > Memory memory memory! True, memory is not currently a limiting
> > factor, but it likely could be if he were running BIND locally. As
> > for making sure that the server is not authoratative for other
> > domains, that will help keep other DNS demands to a minimum.
> From memory (sic) a caching name server for an ISP with 500,000
> customers that has typically >10,000 customers online at busy times
> will grow to about 200M of RAM. Extrapolating from that I expect that
> 20M of RAM should be adequate for a caching name server for the type of
> load we are discussing.
> If the machine is upgraded to a decent amount of RAM (128M is nothing
> by today's standards and upgrading RAM is the cheapest upgrade
> possible) then the amount of RAM for a caching name server should not
> be an issue.
> > Other than that, yea, some kind of RAID solution would be cool for
> > him. I'd also look at making sure /var/log is on a seperate drive
> > from /var/spool/mail. I saw an email that indicated that /swap was
> > seperate from /var/spool, but nothing about where the log files were
> > located. Not synching after evey write will help obviously, but I
> > recall seeing quite a benefit from seperate drive for /var/log and
> > /var/spool.
> My understanding of the discussion was that there was one drive for
> /var/spool (which is for the queue and /var/spool/mail) and another
> drive for everything else.
> That should be fine, but getting some drives that are less than 3 years
> old would be a good idea...
> http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
> http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
> http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
> http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page