OK. In a system with four drives, what is the best configuration?
2 x RAID1
A)
mirror disks 0 & 1
mirror disks 2 & 3
for two RAID 1 container
ok
B)
stripe disks 0 & 1
stripe disks 2 & 3
mirror container 1 with container 2
I wouldn't stripe, just mirror
What would be an indication of
> RAID5 is slow on writing. Use Raid 1.
OK. In a system with four drives, what is the best configuration?
4 x SCSI 15k RPM drives
Two internal RAID channels.
Split hard drive backplane (2 disks on each channel)
A)
mirror disks 0 & 1
mirror disks 2 & 3
for two RAID 1 container
B)
stripe disks
ery difficulty" --Winston Churchill
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dan Shadix
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 12:28 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] ideal config
>
>
> You could
You could hire Len to set up an IMGate and treat it as a closed system. I'll bet you
could save tons of money that way. Do you maintain the OS on your firewall or
routers? There really isn't much to maintain once it's set up and very few updates
are required, just the occasional security upda
5,175
> take a previous days's sysMMDD.txt log file
>
> find /c "ldeliver" /path/to/sysMMDD.txt( is incoming msgs)
41,025
> find /c "rdeliver" /path/to/sysMMDD.txt ( is outgoing msgs)
10,436
let's call it 60K msgs/day.
> ... roughly, but close enough for all intensive porpoises.
- Original Message -
> everybody gets lucky sometime! :)
hehe. :)
> to count mailboxes in the mailbox tree
>
> dir /s \path\to\mailboxtree\*.mbx | find /c ".mbx"
5,175
> take a previous days's sysMMDD.txt log file
>
> find /c "ldeliver" /path/to/sysMMDD.txt( is incoming msgs)
41,
I haven't a clue - hence the post to this list.
fair enough
Beats me. If neither iMail or the OS would benefit from it, might as well
remove it.
no! The cache speeds disk i/o throughput (it's more important the CPU MHz),
so it's very important for the mailqueue, where the msgs files are
t
- Original Message -
> >Dual Processor Intel Xeon, 2.8GHz w/512K Cache
> >512MB DDR,200MHZ,2X256MB DIMMS
>
> a total waste of money. Why do you think the Imail server will need such
> computing power?
I haven't a clue - hence the post to this list.
> >Hardware RAID with 128MB Battery Back
-- Raid 1 (2 drives): OS and application
-- Raid 1 (2 drives): Mailboxes
-- 1 drive: spool directory
For a total of 5 SCSI drives.
We are in the process of porting our servers and I was under the
impression that would be the most desirable config.
looks good. But I bet you don't need the
would be the most desirable config.
True ? False?
Regards,
Kami
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Len Conrad
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 6:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] ideal config
>I think/thought t
I think/thought that RAID5 had the fastest read rate.
And the slowest write rate. Mailboxes and mailqueue is 50:50 read:write,
best with RAID1 whereas RAID5 is better for database where it's 90:10
read:write.
If we dropped the logging to the RAID1 partition I noted below, you think
the mailb
Dual Processor Intel Xeon, 2.8GHz w/512K Cache
512MB DDR,200MHZ,2X256MB DIMMS
a total waste of money. Why do you think the Imail server will need such
computing power?
(these three configured RAID5; D:36GB for the spool and mailboxes)
RAID5 is slow on writing. Use Raid 1.
Hardware RAID w
Message -
From: "Eric Shanbrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] ideal config
> Due to the high volume of I/O for spool and mailboxes I would go with RAID
> 0/1 instead of 5
>
>
>
Due to the high volume of I/O for spool and mailboxes I would go with RAID
0/1 instead of 5
- Original Message -
From: "Brad Kingsley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 5:22 PM
Subject: [IMail Forum] ideal config
> We're looking for the ideal
14 matches
Mail list logo
