Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
> I have an odd question. Where I work we will, in the next year, be in a
> position to have to process about a terabyte or more of data. The data is
> probably going to be shipped on tapes to us but then it needs to be read
> from disks and analyzed. The process
Quoted mail:
> Dan Hollis wrote:
... some parts are cutted .
>
> I never denied that such beasts exist. I just wanted to point out that a
> x86 machine with those mobos would come close in price to the alpha
> solution.
> I simply can't imagine that there are no alpha boxen with more than 2
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> http://www.compaq.com/alphaserver/gs80/index.html This isn't even the top
> of the line Alpha, but it has 16 (that's F in hex, or 20 in octal) PCI
> busses. Again, you PAY for that kind of machine.
That machine costs around US$2million.
-Dan
Enough with the vulgarities. This doesn't really belong on the RAID list
any longer, but I'll make a few points below.
> -Original Message-
> From: Marc Mutz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > > > The alphas we have here have the same number of slots.
> > > But not only one bus. They typi
Dan Hollis wrote:
>
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Marc Mutz wrote:
> > Look, you are an the _very_ wrong track! You may have 6 or 7 PCI
> > _slots_, but you have only _one_ bus, i.e. only 133MB/sec bandwidth for
> > _all_ 6 or 7 devices. You will not get 90MB/sec real throughput with a
> > bus bandwidth
Boy I don't know who was screaming about PCI bandwidth, but :
1) I was the first person to mention it, weeks ago, so its no
news flash, and you're no genius for thinking of it.
2) Stop screaming.
3) Be informed.
P.S. Let us know what happens, Seth, this sounds like a cool project!
Ed
> Look at the reality! If you have to do this sort of thing, x86 will give
> you headaches. Normal 133MhZx32Bit PCI is _way_ too slow for that
> machine. The entire PCI bus cannot saturate _one_ Ultra160 SCSI
> controller, let alone a GigEth card. Putting More than one into a box
> and trying to u
Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> > I'd try an alpha machine, with 66MHz-64bit PCI bus, and interleaved
> > memory access, to improve memory bandwidth. It costs around $1
> > with 512MB of RAM, see SWT (or STW) or Microway. This cost is
> > small compared to the disks.
> The alpha comes with other headac
Seth Vidal writes:
> I have an odd question. Where I work we will, in the next year, be in a
> position to have to process about a terabyte or more of data. The data is
> probably going to be shipped on tapes to us but then it needs to be read
> from disks and analyzed. The process is segmentable
Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> So my questions are these:
> Is 90MB/s a reasonable speed to be able to achieve in a raid0 array
> across say 5-8 drives?
> What controllers/drives should I be looking at?
Im a big IDE fan, and have experimented with raid0 a fair bit, i dreamt
of achieving theses speeds w
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, [ISO-8859-2] Krisztián Tamás wrote:
> > or just brilliant driver design by Leonard Zubkof, but the Mylex
> > cards are the performance king for hardware RAID under Linux (and
> I was suprised to hear that. We just bought a Mylex AcceleRAID
> 250 with five 18G IBM disks, and
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 11 05:21:43 2000
>
> Hi!
>
> > or just brilliant driver design by Leonard Zubkof, but the Mylex
> > cards are the performance king for hardware RAID under Linux (and
> I was suprised to hear that. We just bought a Mylex AcceleRAID
> 250 with five 18G IBM disks
Hi!
> or just brilliant driver design by Leonard Zubkof, but the Mylex
> cards are the performance king for hardware RAID under Linux (and
I was suprised to hear that. We just bought a Mylex AcceleRAID
250 with five 18G IBM disks, and it's a lot slower than sw RAID.
HW RAID 5 read: 26MB/s
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > >arguably only 500gb per machine will be needed. I'd like to get the fastest
> > >possible access rates from a single machine to the data. Ideally 90MB/s+
> >
> > Is this vastly read-only or will write speed also be a factor?
>
> mostly read-only.
If
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Seth Vidal wrote:
> What I was thinking was a good machine with a 64bit pci bus and/or
> multiple buses.
> And A LOT of external enclosures.
Multiple Mylex extremeRAID's.
> I've had some uncomfortable experiences with hw raid controllers -
> ie: VERY poor performance and ex
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jul 10 18:43:11 2000
>
> > There are some (pre) test
> > versions by Linux and Alan Cox out awaiting feedback from testers, but
> > nothing solid or consistent yet. Be careful when using these for
> > serious work. Newer != Better
>
> This isn't being planned for t
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jul 10 17:53:34 2000
>
> > If you can take the performance hit, the Mylex ExtremeRAID cards
> > come in a 3-channel variety. You could then split your array
> > into 3 chunks of 3-4 disks each and use hardware RAID instead of
> > the software raidtools.
>
> I've not
> I'd try an alpha machine, with 66MHz-64bit PCI bus, and interleaved
> memory access, to improve memory bandwidth. It costs around $1
> with 512MB of RAM, see SWT (or STW) or Microway. This cost is
> small compared to the disks.
The alpha comes with other headaches I'd rather not involve myse
> There are some (pre) test
> versions by Linux and Alan Cox out awaiting feedback from testers, but
> nothing solid or consistent yet. Be careful when using these for
> serious work. Newer != Better
This isn't being planned for the next few weeks - its 2-6month planning
that I'm doing. So I'm
I'd try an alpha machine, with 66MHz-64bit PCI bus, and interleaved
memory access, to improve memory bandwidth. It costs around $1
with 512MB of RAM, see SWT (or STW) or Microway. This cost is
small compared to the disks.
I've never had trouble with adaptec cards, if you terminate things
acco
On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 05:40:54PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > FWIW, you are going to have trouble pushing anywhere near 90MB/s out of a
> > gigabit ethernet card, at least under 2.2. I don't have any experience w/
> > 2.4 yet.
> I hadn't planned on implementing this under 2.2 - I realize the
> If you can take the performance hit, the Mylex ExtremeRAID cards
> come in a 3-channel variety. You could then split your array
> into 3 chunks of 3-4 disks each and use hardware RAID instead of
> the software raidtools.
I've not had good performance out of mylex. In fact its been down-right
s
> FWIW, you are going to have trouble pushing anywhere near 90MB/s out of a
> gigabit ethernet card, at least under 2.2. I don't have any experience w/
> 2.4 yet.
I hadn't planned on implementing this under 2.2 - I realize the
constraints on the network performance. I've heard good things about
> i have not used adaptec 160 cards, but i have found most everything else they
> make to be very finicky about cabling and termination, and have had hard
> drives give trouble on adaptec that worked fine on other cards.
>
> my money stays with a lsi/symbios/ncr based card. tekram is a good vendo
I haven't had very good experiences with the Adaptec cards either.
If you can take the performance hit, the Mylex ExtremeRAID cards
come in a 3-channel variety. You could then split your array
into 3 chunks of 3-4 disks each and use hardware RAID instead of
the software raidtools.
Cheers,
Chri
You will definitely need that 64 bit PCI bus. You might want to watch out
for your memory bandwidth as well. (i.e. get something with interleaved
memory). Standard PC doesn't get but 800MB/s peak to main memory.
FWIW, you are going to have trouble pushing anywhere near 90MB/s out of a
gigabit e
> If you can afford it and this is for real work, you may want to
> consider something like a Network Appliance Filer. It will be
> a lot more robust and quite a bit faster than rolling your own
> array. The downside is they are quite expensive. I believe the
> folks at Raidzone make a "poor ma
i have not used adaptec 160 cards, but i have found most everything else they
make to be very finicky about cabling and termination, and have had hard
drives give trouble on adaptec that worked fine on other cards.
my money stays with a lsi/symbios/ncr based card. tekram is a good vendor, and
sym
> >arguably only 500gb per machine will be needed. I'd like to get the fastest
> >possible access rates from a single machine to the data. Ideally 90MB/s+
>
> Is this vastly read-only or will write speed also be a factor?
mostly read-only.
-sv
If you can afford it and this is for real work, you may want to
consider something like a Network Appliance Filer. It will be
a lot more robust and quite a bit faster than rolling your own
array. The downside is they are quite expensive. I believe the
folks at Raidzone make a "poor man's" canne
> -Original Message-
> From: Seth Vidal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 12:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: speed and scaling
>
> So were considering the following:
>
> Dual Processor P3 something.
> ~1gb ram.
> multiple 75gb ultra
Seth Vidal wrote:
[monster data set description snipped]
> So were considering the following:
>
> Dual Processor P3 something.
> ~1gb ram.
> multiple 75gb ultra 160 drives - probably ibm's 10krpm drives
> Adaptec's best 160 controller that is supported by linux.
[snip]
> So my questions are the
Sounds like fun. Check out VA Linux's dual CPU boxes. They also
offer fast LVD SCSI drives which can be raided together. I've got one
dual P3-700 w/ dual 10k LVD drives. FAST!
I'd suggest staying away from NFS for performance reasons. I think
there is a better replacement out there ('coda'
>arguably only 500gb per machine will be needed. I'd like to get the fastest
>possible access rates from a single machine to the data. Ideally 90MB/s+
Is this vastly read-only or will write speed also be a factor?
-HJC
34 matches
Mail list logo
