In one of the more effective high-loads shops I have worked in, we
deployed RAID 1 for logs and RAID 10 for data. The number of disks we
put into those RAID 10's depended on anticipated load of the specific
application. We often found ourselves needing additional spindles to
meet high I/O needs,
Götz Reinicke - IT Koordinator wrote:
Hi,
soon I'll get a SUN X4170 with 8*2,5 SAS 300 GB harddisks. (24 GB
RAM)
This system could be our new central mysql-server for some
LAMP-systems. (right now about 50 GB mysql data total, roughly 60-70%
reads.)
What would be a good raid-Layout
On Sep 28, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Atle Veka wrote:
I am planning on running some tests on a SATA server with a 3ware 9000
series RAID card to see if there's a stripe size that performs
better than
This might be able to help you out:
http://hashmysql.org/index.php?title=Opteron_HOWTO
These
My guess is that the RAID has nothing to do with it -- it seems very unlikely.
In any case, if you want top performance out of your raid, you may
want to change things up. You'd get better performance if you didn't
use RAID5. Use RAID1 or RAID10 for your data drives. RAID5 is slower
than these
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Gary Richardson wrote:
My guess is that the RAID has nothing to do with it -- it seems very unlikely.
In any case, if you want top performance out of your raid, you may
want to change things up. You'd get better performance if you didn't
use RAID5. Use RAID1 or RAID10 for
I found the article very interesting. It seems they couldn't trash
3ware cards enough.
We swear by 3ware cards -- other than the PCIX riser card issue, we
haven't a single problem with them. Our production database server is
running off of a RAID1 for the OS and a RAID10 for the data and every
DuBois [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 8:18 PM
To: Kirti S. Bajwa; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RAID Question
At 15:19 -0500 11/10/04, Kirti S. Bajwa wrote:
Hello List:
System: RH9, MySQL 4.1.7
I am in the process of re-setting up (I have test setup 4-5 times
Hello List:
System: RH9, MySQL 4.1.7
I am in the process of re-setting up (I have test setup 4-5 times) a data
server with the above software. This server consists of 2-CPU (Intel)
RAID-1, 1-40GB IDE HDD for O/S 2-250GB IDE HDD for storing data. 250 GB
IDE HDD are mirrored (RAID-1).
In the last episode (Apr 13), Yonah Russ said:
Can anyone explain what the raid configure option does? Is this for
use when storing mysql on hardware raid? if so, what type(s)- ie.
striping, mirroring?
It's mainly to support tables over 2gb on old Linux kernels that can't
do large files. You
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 10:33:17AM -0500, Brent Baisley wrote:
Actually, you want to try to match the stripe size to your data size.
The ideal would be to have a stripe size equal to the size of a record
in your database. This way the disk needs only one read or write for
each database
Actually, you want to try to match the stripe size to your data size.
The ideal would be to have a stripe size equal to the size of a record
in your database. This way the disk needs only one read or write for
each database record. You really don't want to fragment a record. A
large stripe
Hi,
Having implemented all the solutions you suggest, I would need more
information to answer this problem.
1. What is the acceptable uptime of the system? 95%, 99%, 99.9%, 99.99% ?
2. In the event of a failure, what is the acceptable recovery time? None,
20 mins, 1 hr, 5 hrs, 1 day ?
3.
Hi,
Having implemented all the solutions you suggest, I would need more
information to answer this problem.
1. What is the acceptable uptime of the system? 95%, 99%, 99.9%, 99.99% ?
2. In the event of a failure, what is the acceptable recovery time? None,
20 mins, 1 hr, 5 hrs, 1 day ?
3.
On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 14:21, Richard Reina wrote:
I am wanting to protect myself against future potential hard drive
failures on my DB server running version 3.23.49a. Should I try and set
up a RAID, a mirror or would the best solution be to set up MySQL
replication. Any suggestions would
Richard,
If you want to protect against hard drive failures then a RAID setup is
probably the best option. A RAID will ensure that you always have an
up-to-the-instant backup of all of your data in case a drive goes bad;
however, a RAID won'tstop a bug, virus, or error from screwing up
--On Friday, August 22, 2003 1:21 PM -0400 Lefevre, Steven
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
that is not true. mirroring gives you double the read speed and half
the write speed. RAID5 gives you less than half the write speed.
-
OK, I see how it can give you double the read speed, but how
--On Friday, August 22, 2003 8:37 PM -0600 Jim McAtee
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't quite understand the need to read data before any write. Why
wouldn't it just calculate the parity of whatever is being written and
just write it to disk? Wouldn't there be slack space, as with any disk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not think it is true that mirroring gives no performance benefit
(on a
well implemented controller). For reads, the raid controller can read
either copy of the data, so that effectively two reads can be in
progress
at the same time, doubling read
I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card.
Mirroring just gives you backup, and you lose half your diskspace. It
offers
no performance benefit, and actually the computer might have to work
harder
to make sure the drives are in sync.
I do not think it is true that mirroring gives no
-Original Message-
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jon Drukman
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 9:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RAID or not?
Lefevre, Steven wrote:
I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card.
Mirroring just gives you backup, and you lose
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card.
Mirroring just gives you backup, and you lose half your diskspace. It
offers
no performance benefit, and actually the computer might have to work
harder
to make sure the drives are in sync.
I do not think it is
Jackson Miller wrote:
I am setting up a dedicated MySQL server with some pretty heavy usage. I am
not much of a sys admin (mostly a programmer). I have some questions about
the best drive configuration.
I have 4 SCSI drives currently.
I would like to have 1 drive run the OS,
1 drive to be
I like using either raid 0+1.. it really cooks, or if you can'y spare the
disks, raid 1 ...Something pushing that many queries, should probably
be protected from disk failure.
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Jackson Miller wrote:
I am setting up a dedicated MySQL server with some pretty heavy usage.
Jackson,
Jackson Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have 4 SCSI drives currently.
Well, is you want Redundancy you don't have a choice. Mirror them. 2x 2
drives.
You might want to put OS and write-ahead-log on one and
InnoDB/MyISAM-data on the other.
I would like to have 1 drive run the
On Thursday 21 August 2003 2:23, Jon Drukman wrote:
if you're mostly running SELECTs then i would recommend a mirrored
configuration.
I would say I am running about %50 SELECTS, 30% UPDATE, 20% INSERT. However I
don't know how to find that out for sure.
Would that affect how I set up the
]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 11:56 AM
To: Jon Drukman
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RAID or not?
On Thursday 21 August 2003 2:23, Jon Drukman wrote:
if you're mostly running SELECTs then i would recommend a mirrored
configuration.
I would say I am running about %50 SELECTS, 30% UPDATE
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 10:20 AM
Subject: RE: RAID or not?
I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card.
Mirroring just gives you backup, and you lose half your diskspace. It
offers
no performance benefit, and actually the computer might have to work
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lefevre, Steven) writes:
I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card.
..
You get better performance than mirroring or regular drive, because
the data is spread out over your drives. It's not as good as disk
striping, though.
Ehh. Wrong. That is not how it works. If you
Lefevre, Steven wrote:
I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card.
Mirroring just gives you backup, and you lose half your diskspace. It offers
no performance benefit, and actually the computer might have to work harder
to make sure the drives are in sync.
that is not true. mirroring gives you
In the last episode (Aug 21), Jon Drukman said:
Lefevre, Steven wrote:
I say go with RAID 5, on a controller card.
Mirroring just gives you backup, and you lose half your diskspace.
It offers no performance benefit, and actually the computer might
have to work harder to make sure the
Thanks to everybody for the nice discussion.
Just to let you know about my (not necessary final) decisions:
We will upgrade our SCSI -II controller to an Ultra SCSI 160 controller
(always a good idea).
Next we are looking into buying a RAID-5 system from RAIDking.
While we do this we hope for
RE: SCSI needed for best performance -
While this is true in some cases, if you are using striping or any
RAID level (RAID 5 for example) that splits reads and writes across
drives, then there will be several IDE channels feeding data to the
RAID card at a time. Two ATA100 IDE channels
After testing a lot of different configurations (which was quite a
headache), I came up with the following. First of all, for both speed
and reliability, you will want SCSI. The list of reasons are quite long
for SCSI, and as you are doing research on the subject, it is an obvious
choice and I
What sort of throughput are you seeing in that setup?
God, I can't remember anymore. I can run a test again though. If you
have one you want me to run, just send it. We don't have other people's
money to spend, so all our disks are U160 18GB 15K IBM. They were less
than $100 each when we got
---Original Message-
--From: Adam Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 11:56 AM
--To: 'Bernd Jagla'; 'mysql'
--Subject: RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
--
--We recently bought a kick $%#%% machine for ~10k
--
--HP DL380
--2x2.8GHz Xeon
--1GB RAM
--5
'; 'mysql'
Subject: RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
---Original Message-
--From: Adam Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 11:56 AM
--To: 'Bernd Jagla'; 'mysql'
--Subject: RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
--
--We recently bought a kick
2 x 2.8 GHZ Xeon
4 GB of RAM
5 15K SCSI Drives
ICP SCSCI RAID control card with 1 Gb of ram on it.
I just bought 30 of these boxes to build out my mysql farm for close to
400-600 queries a second with 60 connections a second of mix read /
writes.
What kind of queries are you doing? Our
but they are not quite
there yet. It's a hard problem I can only think of a way by having every
possible bit in an index but then that makes the index useless.
---Original Message-
--From: Steven Roussey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 12:59 PM
--To: 'Mysql'
--Subject: RE: RAID
At 13:14 2003-06-17, Bernd Jagla wrote:
Sorry I forgot to mention:
We are using IRIS on an Origion2000, 7GB memory, 8 CPUs. I was thinking of
spending up to $10K.
I also wanted the redundant data for speeding up the seeks, I also need to
speed up the writes.
Bernd
I assume You mean IRIX on O2k.
A lot of table scans do to bitmasked column values.
Such that the above query will not utilize a key.
That statement gave me a cold shiver up my spine.
You could try an inverted index or match-cache technique, or
denormalization. These type of techniques are very app specific, but can
reduce
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 03:20:17PM -0400, Adam Nelson wrote:
Where'd you get it. I've had bad experiences with generic machines but
I'll take a peak if you send the link?
There are a couple of things I didn't mention
2U Form Factor with tool-less rails
Redundant Power Supply
Redundant
I am using 4 120G IDE Drives with an Adaptec IDE RAID Controller on RedHat
Linux providing 240G of RAID 5 storage. While not quite as fast as SCSI, I
have found this to work very well. You should be able to pickup a nice
dual processor XENON 2.4Ghz system w/1G Ram and IDE RAID loaded with
Subject: Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
I am using 4 120G IDE Drives with an Adaptec IDE RAID Controller on RedHat
Linux providing 240G of RAID 5 storage. While not quite as fast as SCSI,
I
have found this to work very well. You should be able to pickup a nice
dual processor XENON
Tried a Promise FastTrak 100 TX2 in a Dell; RH 7.3. Miserable. Bailed on it
after one month.
Kerry
-Original Message-
From: David Griffiths [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 12:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
Anyone had
Im using a 3ware (which has great linux support) Escalade 7800 with 8
120GB/8MB cache ide drives in RAID 10 under Debian with 2.4.20 kernel.
I guess what we need to know is what platform and how much $$ you wanna
spend
-Original Message-
From: Bernd Jagla [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
]
Subject: Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
Anyone had any experience with 3Ware 7500-4 IDE RAID or the Promise
SX-6000
IDE RAID cards? Specifically for Linux. Heard bad things about Promise,
good
about 3Ware.
David
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Shoaf [EMAIL PROTECTED
of Luck,
Grant Q
-Original Message-
From: Gabriel Guzman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:06 AM
To: Bernd Jagla
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; mysql
Subject: Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
Bernd,
here is a good resource on the different types
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
Anyone had any experience with 3Ware 7500-4 IDE RAID or the Promise
SX-6000
IDE RAID cards? Specifically for Linux. Heard bad things about Promise,
good
about 3Ware.
David
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Shoaf
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 09:58, David Griffiths wrote:
Anyone had any experience with 3Ware 7500-4 IDE RAID or the Promise SX-6000
IDE RAID cards? Specifically for Linux. Heard bad things about Promise, good
about 3Ware.
If I had to choose between the two, I would go with the 3wares. They
work
, 2003 10:41 AM
Subject: RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
Optimally, Yes, you should replace with exact same brand/model etc...
but you CAN replace with a different brand/ model drive of the same
amount of disk space or more. It isn't recomended (because of
different seek times, cache
away with it w/o any adverse effects.
-Original Message-
From: William R. Mussatto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 12:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RAID hardware suggestions/experience
I have heard good thing about 3Ware, but I would suggest looking
To me the question of reliability is that of the drive, not the
interface. I cannot see SATA itself being any more or less reliable than
ATA drives. I think certain controllers will accept a new drive that has
similar characteristics as long as the replacement drive is larger than
the lost drive.
We recently bought a kick $%#%% machine for ~10k
HP DL380
2x2.8GHz Xeon
1GB RAM
5 15k scsi drives (2 RAID 1 for OS and logs/3 RAID 5 for data)
RedHat Linux Enterprise Edition 2.1
This machine easily handles 200 queries/sec and never gets a load
average above 1.5. For your space requirements,
Well, there is the ideal setup, which requires intimate knowledge of the
database, lots of disks and extra administration. And then there is the
easy setup. Ideally you don't want to have any hot disks which will
cause contention. This requires you to place your busy tables (read or
write)
Brent Baisley wrote:
Well, there is the ideal setup, which requires intimate knowledge of the
database, lots of disks and extra administration. And then there is the
easy setup. Ideally you don't want to have any hot disks which will
cause contention. This requires you to place your busy
Hi,
In my experience (assuming that you are using mysql for all of these
operations) the best way is to separate your tables into read-heavy and
write heavy and put each into separate databases. Put the write-heavy logs
database onto a separate disk/spindle and use delayed inserts (so that the
RAID --with-raid splits tables up to stop size problems or put one table on
more than one disk.
So is not required for hardware raid.
Simon
-Original Message-
From: Ismael Touama [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 09 July 2002 10:26
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RAID
Hi,
This is my
Ok so it's to emulate it following you explanation.
That's OK, I enter the line (without this option).
thx
bbsc
ism
-Message d'origine-
De : Simon Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Envoyé : mardi 9 juillet 2002 11:42
À : 'Ismael Touama'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : RE: RAID
RAID
* Ismael Touama
This is my first post...
I'm on redhat 7.2, using apache 1.3.23 (patched)
on a PowerEdge 2500 in RAID 1 and I want to install
MySQL 3.23.51...
Must I set to configure the --with-raid ?
No, this is only if you need support for tables with file size bigger than
your OS can
ismaeel
Do you have good link for documentation ?
http://www.mysql.com/doc/C/o/Configuring_MySQL.html
good luck
toby .
_
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 11:00:35AM +0500, Rizwan Majeed wrote:
is there a Raid Mode in MySQL.. I found a RAID_TYPE switch but dont know
much about it.
Here's what I recently wrote about RAID tables. Try to ignore the
funny markup. :-)
---snip---
PRAID tables are just like MyISAM tables
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Zawodny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Here's what I recently wrote about RAID tables. Try to ignore the
funny markup. :-)
snip lots of usefull stuff.
Does that answer your question a bit?
Thanks Jeremy, I was a bit unsure as to RAID tables in
On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 04:04:48PM +0500, Rizwan Majeed wrote:
Can somebody give me an intro into using MySQL over RAID array or
direct me to a good resource on the net. I also want to know what
type of tables support RAID. Is it only MyISAM tables?
If you're talking about a RAID disk
is there a Raid Mode in MySQL.. I found a RAID_TYPE switch but dont know
much about it.
- Original Message -
From: Jeremy Zawodny [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Rizwan Majeed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: RAID
On Tue, Mar 12, 2002
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:29:27 -0800, Jeremy Zawodny used
a few recycled electrons to form:
| On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 04:14:58PM -0600, Michael Brunson wrote:
|
| Has anyone ran any benchmarks as to what affect different number of
| RAID_CHUNKS has on speed?
|
| The more chunks, the slower your
Here is the same data in a little easy format.
Raid Chunks count like %like % %
10.00 sec 0.33 sec 2 min 3.70 sec
30.00 sec 0.39 sec 14 min 59.83 sec
50.00 sec 0.38 sec 6 min 44.92 sec
15 0.00 sec 0.39 sec 6 min 33.72 sec
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 04:14:58PM -0600, Michael Brunson wrote:
Has anyone ran any benchmarks as to what affect different number of
RAID_CHUNKS has on speed?
The more chunks, the slower your retrieval speed is likely to be. But
how many chunks do you really need? More than a few?
mysql
Sorry for the delayed reply.. the list marked my reply as spam ! ;)
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Seth Northrop [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Wouter de Jong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RAID advice :
Let's say your
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 04:49:58AM +0200, Tonu Samuel wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
I'd use a combination of my.cnf entries and SQL. The my.cnf entry (or
entries) woudl list the available directories, like others have
suggested. Then, using SQL, you could:
*
Isn't this something that RAID O does for you on a larger scale anyway?
I would expect that most would have some sort of raid on their mutliple drive
system.
On Monday 18 June 2001 01:52 am, you wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 11:48:04PM -0700, Jamie Krasnoo wrote:
Is there a way to tell
the table. I see that by
setting RAID_CHUNKS you could tell how many directories MySQL should make.
The script could evenly distribute those directories and make the links and
directories for MySQL.
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 11:53 PM
To: Jamie Krasnoo
Cc: MySQL
Subject: Re: raid tables
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 03:56:32AM -0700, Jamie Krasnoo wrote:
[mysqld]
datadir=/data1;/data2;/data3
- or -
datadir=/data1:/data2:/data3
As it stands now, both will produce an error and MySQL will not start.
Other ways could be like: RAID_DIRS=/data1:/data2:/data3
Well, I'll throw
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
I'd use a combination of my.cnf entries and SQL. The my.cnf entry (or
entries) woudl list the available directories, like others have
suggested. Then, using SQL, you could:
* Mark a table to be spread out at creation time vis some
Hi Firdaus!
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Firdaus Mah wrote:
Hi Jerome,
Heh... I'm already doomed. I'ved just inserted 32 million records and its
stopped at 2GB even using on reiserfs.
I'ved not checked the detail or experience in Postgress development. Does it
do stripping as well ie breaking up
Mah
Cc: Jerome Abela; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: raid tables doesnt seem to split files.
Hi Firdaus!
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Firdaus Mah wrote:
Hi Jerome,
Heh... I'm already doomed. I'ved just inserted 32 million records and its
stopped at 2GB even using on reiserfs.
I'ved not checked
75 matches
Mail list logo
