exactly, i am using RAID 1 with mdadm and not more then 230 or 300MB throughput. and the people are harnessing 4GB so this is the point where i am confused
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Gary Dale <garyd...@rogers.com> wrote: > On 10/04/13 10:15 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote: > >> i was watch a person's video regarding RAID 6 with mdadm >> his configuration was very low, some old system probably >> 2GB RAM, 3x8TB Hard Drives, 4port Ethernet card for channeling. >> and the guy was giving review of his home server. he says he will channel >> the 4 port Ethernet to achive 4Gbps network throughput. and 2 drive >> redundancy with RAID6. >> >> my question is >> since i can not invest that huge money for testing so just asking from >> experience users. isn't it going to be a problem because of bottleneck and >> limited throughput of SATA 7200 rpm 3TB drives? >> >> actually what i need is 4GB LAN throughput with teaming (802.3ad) for >> data storage to backup VMs and same huge data manipulations will be done. >> so just confused if it going to work or not. >> >> Thanks, >> MYK >> >> > That's an odd setup. Why use RAID6 with only 3 drives? He'd get better > performance with RAID1 with only 3 drives. > > However, your question is about performance. My RAID5 array with SATA 2 > drives gets about 200MBps. SATA 3 performance should be double that. > > Caching is critical. Disk access is dramatically slower than memory access > so that your real throughput will depend on how much disk access can be > avoided or optimized. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to > debian-user-REQUEST@lists.**debian.org<debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org>with > a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: > http://lists.debian.org/**5165796f.2070...@rogers.com<http://lists.debian.org/5165796f.2070...@rogers.com> > >
