Hi All RAID 0 gives the best read and write performace as the data is striped across the drives. RAID 1 gives the same write performace as a single drive but read performance is faster than a single drive (as there are always 2 drives that the data can be read from, hence the controller can choose the drive not being accessed / with it's head closest to the needed data. RAID5 give read performance a boost for the same reason as RAID0, but write performance is only slightly faster than a single drive as the array must 'stop' while the controller calculates the parity bit and writes that to a drive.
Overall the chances of 2 drives failing at the same time a very small and if they do you look to your backup. Also running all your services on one box will be fine for a small setup, but if you have big plans you will quickly run our of processing power (especially with a database on the box). It would seem unlikley that the HDD transfer speed will be the bottleneck. At 02:53 14/02/2002 +0800, Jason Lim wrote: > > It shouldn't be any worse write performance than RAID-5, and read >performance > > should be good! > > > >With RAID 5, isn't the data distributed (along with parity data) to the >various disks, while with RAID 1 the whole data is written to all disks? >I'm guessing that each disk writing only part of the data to each disk >would lead to faster performance (as long as the controller can handle >sending the data to all the disks that fast). > >Read performance... if it is RAID 1 i suppose it would depend on how good >the read algorithm is? Worst case it would be the same as a single disk. >But if it is RAID 5, wouldn't it only need to read a bit of the data from >each disk (to build up the complete data)? > >(I may be wrong with the above information, i'm no raid expert). > > > Instead of having one server for 50 accounts which does everything, why >not > > have different servers for different services? Then you could have >three web > > servers for several thousand domains instead of getting a new server for > > every 50... > > > >I could see a lot of headache doing it that way, including user >authentication and how to tie all the services together in a nice neat >package that is easy to manage/maintain. Virtually all the publically >available solutions (Plesk, Hostplus, etc.) do it on a per-server basis, >and that would include Cobalt's Raqs. > >I suppose if we have many thousands of accounts it would be more >economical to do it your way (seperate mail server, ftp server, auth >server, www server, database server, etc. each specialized in both >software and hardware) but we don't have THAT many customers ;-) Mostly >we put lower-end clients on servers with 100-200 or so clients, with >higher end clients on servers with 50 or less. Works out pretty well that >way, as you can then artificially "manage" the performance you give >clients (of course, this is not direct control, but it achieves the same >goal). > > >-- >To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
