"Like RAID 0 the average seek time is reduced by half when randomly reading but because each disk has the exact same data the requested sectors can always be split evenly between the disks and the seek time remains low. The transfer rate would also be doubled"
So, double the transfer rate, and half the seek time. > -----Original Message----- > From: Kerry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 11:55 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Dual Xeon 3.06 GHz - 120 GB IDE HD - 2 GB RAM > > >It states that with Raid 1 (mirror) the write speed is the same > > I cant see where it says that? > Maybe a case of temporary blindness on my part, or maybe John has just > edited the "encyclopedia" > > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 19 January 2006 16:21 > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Dual Xeon 3.06 GHz - 120 GB IDE HD - 2 GB RAM > > > I'm not so sure about that. Check wikipedia: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundant_array_of_independent_disks#RAID_1 > > It states that with Raid 1 (mirror) the write speed is the same as a > single > disk, and the read speed is doubled (because each disk in the mirror can > be > accessed individually). Seek time is also halved. > > Russ > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Paul Ashenfelter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 6:23 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: Dual Xeon 3.06 GHz - 120 GB IDE HD - 2 GB RAM > > > > On 1/18/06, Baz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Good call. > > > > > > > Actually, a *mirror* RAID array is *slower*, all other things being > > equal. Two writes instead of 1, though certain controllers make the > > overhead *very* small. Reads, not so different. > > > > If you're after pure speed, you want a RAID *stripe* -- eg RAID 0, > > which spreads data access across 2 or more drives with a corresponding > > increase in speed. > > > > All that said, while YMMV, 2gb is gonna put all but the most enormous > > and session-variable-intensive web sites into RAM, so the HD hit is > > minimal. But I'd still get RAID w/o even thinking twice -- more > > flexibility for either redundancy (RAID 1, 5, 10) or speed (RAID 0) > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:06 PM > > > To: CF-Talk > > > Subject: RE: Dual Xeon 3.06 GHz - 120 GB IDE HD - 2 GB RAM > > > > > > The hd is an obvious bottleneck. That's usually the slowest point in > > your > > > system. I would use a SCSI or at least a SATA drive, and then > probably > > for > > > good measure set it up a mirror RAID array (that way you get better > > > performance. > > > > > > Russ > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Baz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:49 PM > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > Subject: Dual Xeon 3.06 GHz - 120 GB IDE HD - 2 GB RAM > > > > > > > > If I installed: > > > > - CFMX7 Enterprise > > > > - MySQL 5.0 > > > > > > > > On the following machine: > > > > - Dual Xeon 3.06 GHz - 120 GB IDE HD - 2 GB RAM > > > > > > > > Am I making good use of the hardware? Can both technologies fully > > utilize > > > > the CPU and RAM? Any obvious bottlenecks, perhaps add another GB of > > ram? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Baz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:229990 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
