actually did not save any hard numbers, but on a 3 disk setup i had here,
raid1 was faster under bonnie with the test size 3x my ram. less than
that, and i found the results pretty variable.
but, our boy was talking about a single hotel firewall, and yet this
discussion now revolves around beowulf clusters :)
as such, i dont think a raid5 array, which can survive a single disk loss
is the way to go. i think 3 drives in raid1 (perhaps one of those a hot
spare) makes more sense.
just my .02
al
"so don't tell us it can't be done, putting down what you don't know.
money isn't our god, integrity will free our souls" - Max Cavalera
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Evgeny Stambulchik wrote:
> "m. allan noah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 3. raid 5 is uneeded, as raid1 gives better read performance
>
> Hmm, did you actually compare? I haven't benchmarked a 2-disk array, but
> with 3 disks, RAID5 beats RAID1 on BOTH writes and reads. Theoretically,
> this shouldn't happen, but it's a current state of the software RAID1...
>
> Regards,
>
> Evgeny
>
>
> --
> ____________________________________________________________
> / Evgeny Stambulchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> \
> / Plasma Laboratory, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel \ \
> | Phone : (972)8-934-3610 == | == FAX : (972)8-934-3491 | |
> | URL : http://plasma-gate.weizmann.ac.il/~fnevgeny/ | |
> | Finger for PGP key >=====================================+ |
> |______________________________________________________________|
>
