I'm sorry you asked about write speed:
"When writing, the array performs like a single disk as all mirrors must be written with the data." I'm sure there is some overhead, but it should be negligible. Russ > -----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:4:229991 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
