On Mon, 01 Nov 1999, Francisco Jose Montilla wrote:
[Very Good stuff snipped]
> - and raid level 0 sets for disk2 and disk4, as you don't care about
> redundancy w/ index files (you can easily recreate them). I don't know if
> using raid 0 in that machine will give more performance, (although you'll
> benefit for larger storage capacity coupling those small disks) i'd bet
> no... just trying to generalise for other potential readers...
Yes. Indeed i was trying to make profit of this disk that otherwise are useless
(i deal with a 450Mb database) demosntrating to a enterprise that Linux can
make use of their of their machines better than its actual server under NT (a
300MHz P][ -92Mb RAM). They accepted the challenge , and i has been working
this weekend in the server assembly and tunning. I thinked Linear Raid was the
better approach , and RAID-0 second choice. But as i want max perfomace with
this limited system , i called advice.
By now , i'm winning. System gets a result of 0.1 secs x query in front of the
0.7 that gets the NT. After being parsed by PHP and served by apache , i get
0.5s x query. I have no means to measure the time w/o RAID , simply because
the Database does not fit };->
(BTW , the NT server uses UW-SCSI...Ho Ho Ho)
Next , The Pentium Rebuilding Quest.
Shoggoth , The Craputer Master
F. Javier Rodríguez Ing. Tec. Telecom.
Alcoy , Alicante , Spain
