On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Shoggoth wrote:
Hi,
> 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.
I'd bet raid0 will be better in terms of performance, and after
all, you don't have redundancy with linear either... Take care, and do
backups, you're risking your valuable data on old IDE disks, and raised
twice the posibilities of losing it due to a disk crash; no linux/raid is
gonna save you from that if it happens.
> 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 };->
uh-oh, a big-one-table database?
greetings,
*****---(*)---**********************************************---------->
Francisco J. Montilla System & Network administrator
[EMAIL PROTECTED] irc: pukka Seville Spain
INSFLUG (LiNUX) Coordinator: www.insflug.org - ftp.insflug.org
