Tom,
I was saying that the Raid5 has the best combination for the 3 drives
that he has, performance, redundancy and space. Yes it has slower write
times than Raid1, however for a server that he wants to handle 150k - 200k
the Raid5 presents a solution where no single drive will create a server
failure. Which is always my primary interest. Any of the other option
would.
I am fairly new to the list so I have not been around for previous Raid5
discussions regarding mail servers. With 3 x 15k rpm SCSI hard drives
hanging on a 5 mb connection I wouldn't perceive the Raid array write
performance to be a bottleneck. If I am wrong please inform me. Writes on
Raid5 are faster and the reads are slower. However all task still must be
completed, and one can help balance the other.
Todd
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Tolmachoff (Lists)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 1:04 AM
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] IMail Drive/Partitions
Wrong Todd. Raid5 is poor for read. Think, it has to both allocate and write
the data evenly across the set, plus calculate and write the parity bit.
This has be plenty of discussion on this list clearly stating Raid5 should
not be used for Spool or Mailboxes, both of which are HEAVY read and write.
John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA
Engineer/Consultant
eServices For You
www.eservicesforyou.com
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
