Actually, I only need one box, with a mirrored disk and
ideally with hot swap/auto rebuild capabilities as well.
Thanks for all the help guys.
> If you mean to be able to recover from a CPU crash in the middle of a
> transaction - OK. But it's definitely not what the original poster had in
actually did not save any hard numbers, but on a 3 disk setup i had here,
raid1 was faster under bonnie with the test size 3x my ram. less than
that, and i found the results pretty variable.
but, our boy was talking about a single hotel firewall, and yet this
discussion now revolves around beowul
Osma Ahvenlampi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alvin Oga) writes:
> > for larger systems/clusters:
> > what about the linux High Availability project ?
> > and/or the beowolf project ?
>
> No Linux project I know of can yet provide generic failsafe clustering.
If you mean
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Brothers, John wrote:
> Actually, I only need one box, with a mirrored disk and
> ideally with hot swap/auto rebuild capabilities as well.
I would look at the hardware RAID SCSI controllers. They provide
always-bootable (i.e. they present a boot sector from the RAID array)
"m. allan noah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3. raid 5 is uneeded, as raid1 gives better read performance
Hmm, did you actually compare? I haven't benchmarked a 2-disk array, but
with 3 disks, RAID5 beats RAID1 on BOTH writes and reads. Theoretically,
this shouldn't happen, but it's a current s
