Re: RAID performance
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 10:30:13AM +0100, Pete Clarke wrote:
> >
> > I will be installing 4 120gb EIDE ATA133 drives, would I get better
> > performance by mounting each one individually, or by RAID0ing them?
run some tests ??
date
.. run a loop of 10 tests .. not just once
date
change the disk config to be ther other way
run the same test script
raid5 "should" be faster than raid0
and raid5 gives you redundancy for your data on 4 disks
while if one disk dies in raid0 ... you loss data on all 4 disks
if you meant mirroring ( raid1 ) than you only get to use ( have useful
data on ) 2 of the 4 disks
> > Backup is taken care of, so redundancy is not a problem
:-)
> also I will be
> > using ext3 (unless someone can suggest something better, but that's all I
> > have experiience of).
> > The file sizes are small to medium in general, but some are over 1 - 2gb
> > (not many).
>
> You will get MUCH better performance by RAIDing them together. As long
> as backup is taken care of, you'll theoretically, get 4 times the
> performance by having them set up as RAID0. (Theoretically. In
> practice, it'll be closer to 2x most likely. Also depending on if you
> do software or hardware RAID.)
cant imagine allowing one disk failure to take down 4 disks
( backup or no backup )
to backup 4x 300GB disks meants you have 1.2TB of data offline
somewhere ...
and if you're like me, i keep at least 2-3 sets of backups
of full and incremental backups of important data
- all backups can go live in a few minutes
in lieu of the main server
> As for filesystems, I personally prefer ReiserFS, but that's just
> personal preference. If you're comfortable with ext3, then by all
> means use ext3.
ditto, reiserfs is a better choice than ext3
see the reiserfs vs ext3 benchmarks at namesys.com
c ya
alvin
Reply to: