Quoting "John G. Heim" :
> Well, this is actually the problem... I am about as sure as I can be that a
> "spam bomb" is not a noce every five year event. We get flooded with spam
> pretty regularly. Its probably not a million messages a day but more like
> 50,000 in two hours and then little or no
On 2010-03-12 17:45, Craig White wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 15:57 +, Jefferson Ogata wrote:
>> On 2010-03-12 15:39, Craig White wrote:
>>> I don't think I understand your 'odds' model. I interpret the first
>>> example as RAID 50 having 5 times more likelihood of loss than RAID 10
>>> and I
John G. Heim wrote:
> From: "Jefferson Ogata"
>
>> *Again*, this is why if you have particular performance requirements,
>> you should consult with your database vendor to determine what bandwidth
>> and IOPS you need, and benchmark your gear using different RAID configs.
>> You may find that R
On 2010-03-12 22:10, John G. Heim wrote:
> I really think my boss is nearly out of patience with me. I think I know
> what I want though. If I want to set up two RAIDs, one for the operating
> system and one for the database files, do I need two PERCs? Can a single
> PERC put 2 disks in a RAID-1
Hello John,
I don't know what the other profs will say,but I would take at least a
double channel raidcontroller and put at least half of the disks at one
channel and the other disks at the other channel.
and make a config like
channel a: disk a, b, c, (half of 1st array)
channel b: disk a',b',c'
From: "Eric Rostetter"
The other trap would be what happens if you get "spam bombed" and get say
> a couple million spams sent to you in an hour or so... Do you expect to
> survive this without slowdown, or is it okay that it slows down until the
> spam bomb dies down? You might only get a spam
Quoting "John G. Heim" :
> We have mysql databases for spamassassin bayesian rules, hore3/imp web mail,
> and drupal. We also have a small departmental database updated via my own
> web apps.
Drupal and horde are _probably_ going to be mostly read heavy, so they
probably don't matter.
You're go
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 15:57 +, Jefferson Ogata wrote:
> On 2010-03-12 15:39, Craig White wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 07:06 +, Jefferson Ogata wrote:
> >> On 2010-03-12 04:26, Craig White wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 02:23 +, Jefferson Ogata wrote:
> On 2010-03-11 22:23,
> I mentioned in my original message that our databases consist
> primarily of spamassassin bayesian rules and horde3/imp web mail.
Minor correction... I posted the info about my database uses in another
thread on this list, not this thread. I did neglect to reiterate what uses I
had for the DB
On 2010-03-12 15:45, John G. Heim wrote:
> Well, its not really practical to suggest that I consult with my vendor. My
> whole budget is $6000. This is just the Math Department at the University of
> Wisconsin. I mentioned in my original message that our databases consist
> primarily of spamassa
On 2010-03-12 15:39, Craig White wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 07:06 +, Jefferson Ogata wrote:
>> On 2010-03-12 04:26, Craig White wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 02:23 +, Jefferson Ogata wrote:
On 2010-03-11 22:23, Matthew Geier wrote:
> I've had a disk fail in such a way on a S
From: "Jefferson Ogata"
> *Again*, this is why if you have particular performance requirements,
> you should consult with your database vendor to determine what bandwidth
> and IOPS you need, and benchmark your gear using different RAID configs.
> You may find that RAID 5 is just fine performance-
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 07:06 +, Jefferson Ogata wrote:
> On 2010-03-12 04:26, Craig White wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 02:23 +, Jefferson Ogata wrote:
> >> On 2010-03-11 22:23, Matthew Geier wrote:
> >>> I've had a disk fail in such a way on a SCSI array that all disks on
> >>> that SCSI
Plenty of good advice in this thread, I might add that you'd wish to use
the maximum number of disks you can pack into your box and meet your
storage requirements, and not just a few big ones, favoring RAID-6 over
RAID-5. Usually striping a busy DB over more individual disks will yield
added perfor
On 2010-03-12 04:26, Craig White wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 02:23 +, Jefferson Ogata wrote:
>> On 2010-03-11 22:23, Matthew Geier wrote:
>>> I've had a disk fail in such a way on a SCSI array that all disks on
>>> that SCSI bus became unavailable simultaneously. When half the disks
>>> drop
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 02:23 +, Jefferson Ogata wrote:
> On 2010-03-11 22:23, Matthew Geier wrote:
> > I've had a disk fail in such a way on a SCSI array that all disks on
> > that SCSI bus became unavailable simultaneously. When half the disks
> > dropped of the array at the same time, it gave
On 2010-03-11 22:23, Matthew Geier wrote:
> I've had a disk fail in such a way on a SCSI array that all disks on
> that SCSI bus became unavailable simultaneously. When half the disks
> dropped of the array at the same time, it gave up and corrupted the RAID
> 5 meta data so that even after removin
On 2010-03-11 22:23, Matthew Geier wrote:
> I've had a disk fail in such a way on a SCSI array that all disks on
> that SCSI bus became unavailable simultaneously. When half the disks
> dropped of the array at the same time, it gave up and corrupted the RAID
> 5 meta data so that even after remo
Jefferson Ogata wrote:
>
> That's not what I mean by a full RAID failure. I've had plenty of disks
> fail and subsequent successful rebuilds. I'm saying on one occasion
> (because of an oversight) I ended up with an unrecoverable RAID 5
> because of disk failures.
>
> Of course, this wasn't a se
Quoting Jefferson Ogata :
> That's not what I mean by a full RAID failure.
My mistake; I just glossed right over the word "full" as if it wasn't
there... Sorry about that... Brain fart I guess
--
Eric Rostetter
The Department of Physics
The University of Texas at Austin
Go Longhorns!
_
On 2010-03-11 19:48, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> Quoting Jefferson Ogata :
>> I've got several hundred disks running on RAID 5 and I've had one actual
>> full RAID failure in 10 years, and that was my fault.
>
> You've been lucky! :)
>
> In 10 years, I've think I've had 3 RAID 5 failures (all rebuilt
Quoting Jefferson Ogata :
> I've got several hundred disks running on RAID 5 and I've had one actual
> full RAID failure in 10 years, and that was my fault.
You've been lucky! :)
In 10 years, I've think I've had 3 RAID 5 failures (all rebuilt without
problems).
> In terms of performance, depend
Quoting "J. Epperson" :
> On Thu, March 11, 2010 11:17, Dan Pritts wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 04:54:44PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
>>> Has anyone configured a database server with RAID-5? Is it really a bad
>>> idea
>>
>> http://www.orafaq.com/wiki/RAID
>>
>
> Which says that unless money
On Thu, March 11, 2010 13:09, Preston Hagar wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:26 AM, J. Epperson
> wrote:
>> On Thu, March 11, 2010 11:17, Dan Pritts wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 04:54:44PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
Has anyone configured a database server with RAID-5? Is it really a
Hi
I think if you use raid1 with at least 1 hotspare, you're pretty secure
with a high datatransfer..
If one disk fails then the hotspare takes it place and gives the time to
replace the broken disk..
Recently I put an old server from raid5 to raid1, because of the
progresql. they recommended the
On 2010-03-11 18:09, Preston Hagar wrote:
> Actually it says if money is no object, go with RAID 10:
>
> http://www.orafaq.com/wiki/RAID#RAID_10
>
> RAID 10 is the ideal RAID level in terms of performance and
> availability, but it can be expensive as it requires at least twice
> the amount of di
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:26 AM, J. Epperson
wrote:
> On Thu, March 11, 2010 11:17, Dan Pritts wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 04:54:44PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
>>> Has anyone configured a database server with RAID-5? Is it really a bad
>>> idea
>>
>> http://www.orafaq.com/wiki/RAID
>>
>
>
On Thu, March 11, 2010 11:17, Dan Pritts wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 04:54:44PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
>> Has anyone configured a database server with RAID-5? Is it really a bad
>> idea
>
> http://www.orafaq.com/wiki/RAID
>
Which says that unless money is no object, go with RAID 5.
_
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 04:54:44PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
> Has anyone configured a database server with RAID-5? Is it really a bad idea
One other thought - don't use RAID5 for anything you really care about.
Use RAID6.
For a great understanding of why, read the articles on
http://blogs
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 04:54:44PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
> Has anyone configured a database server with RAID-5? Is it really a bad idea
http://www.orafaq.com/wiki/RAID
"stripe and mirror everything" ie, RAID10.
danno
--
Dan Pritts, Sr. Systems Engineer
Internet2
office: +1-734-352-4953 | m
Quoting "John G. Heim" :
> Has anyone configured a database server with RAID-5?
Sure... Most people don't, but some workloads might benefit from it.
> Is it really a bad idea
> to do so?
Depends on your workload... If it is a mostly read-intensive database, it
would be fine. It it is a mostl
Sorry, I just replied to one msg not to the group..
anyway: for you Matt:
Mostly they recommend raid 1+0 or raid 1 + hotspares..
or raid5 with more then 4 discs (has that to do with smaller
datablocks/stripe or the higher troughput??).. otherwise performance can
be very bad..
At least that was in
Hi,
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 04:54:44PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
>> Has anyone configured a database server with RAID-5? Is it really a bad idea
>> to do so? I asked last month for tips on configuring a DB server. I have
>> around $6K to spend. I am prett
On 2010-03-09 23:12, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 04:54:44PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
>> Has anyone configured a database server with RAID-5? Is it really a bad idea
>> to do so? I asked last month for tips on configuring a DB server. I have
>> around $6K to spend. I am pretty m
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 04:54:44PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
> Has anyone configured a database server with RAID-5? Is it really a bad idea
> to do so? I asked last month for tips on configuring a DB server. I have
> around $6K to spend. I am pretty much settled on getting 2 quad-core CPUs
> an
35 matches
Mail list logo
