On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 01:16:35PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
I agree 100%: hardware raid sucks.
I've been mostly ignoring this thread, but I'm going to jump in at
this point.
We confirmed the performance results with heavy testing. There is virtually
no disadvatage to software raid, just
On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 23:03, David Gilbert wrote:
I'm on a bit of a mission to stamp out this misconception. In my
testing, all but the most expensive hardware raid controllers are
actually slower than FreeBSD's software RAID. I've done my tests with
a variety of controllers with the same
Hi,
In a production environment I would always favor some
kind of error protection. Either RAID 5 or RAID 1
(mirroring). A hardware RAID controller is faster than
software RAID.
Considering the speed of CPU's and busses these days, software RAID can be a
lot faster than hardware RAID in
operationally, disk subsystems trump software raid for primary dataset
storage:
battery backed cache - safety first.
portability - plug it into any other host, or more than one host on the scsi
bus (fc-al loop).
raid on a pci card or raid on the motherboard need not apply less they sport
battery
Hi all,
On Monday 25 November 2002 05:43, Sander Steffann wrote:
Hi,
In a production environment I would always favor some
kind of error protection. Either RAID 5 or RAID 1
(mirroring). A hardware RAID controller is faster than
software RAID.
Considering the speed of CPU's and busses
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:43:56AM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
(mirroring). A hardware RAID controller is faster than
software RAID.
lot faster than hardware RAID in many cases. I prefer hardware RAID myself
because of the simplicity (the OS doesn't need to know about the RAID
Nikolaus == Nikolaus Dilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nikolaus SCSI320 in theory is twice as fast as SCSI160. But the
Nikolaus bottleneck will be the throughput of the individual disks.
Nikolaus 15,000 rpm of course will be faster than 10,000 rpm. More
Nikolaus interesting then the rpm numbers
On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 23:03, David Gilbert wrote:
I'm on a bit of a mission to stamp out this misconception. In my
testing, all but the most expensive hardware raid controllers are
actually slower than FreeBSD's software RAID. I've done my tests with
a variety of controllers with the same
David,
The answer is always: It depends.
Of course can software RAID be faster than hardware
RAID. But then you are not comparing the best
offerings of each category. Software RAID is usually
cheaper than hardware. But again you may be able to
construct a product pairing where it is reverse.
Hossein == Hossein S Zadeh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hossein On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 23:03, David Gilbert wrote:
I'm on a bit of a mission to stamp out this misconception. In my
testing, all but the most expensive hardware raid controllers are
actually slower than FreeBSD's software RAID.
nikolaus == nikolaus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
nikolaus Of course can software RAID be faster than hardware RAID.
nikolaus But then you are not comparing the best offerings of each
nikolaus category. Software RAID is usually cheaper than hardware.
nikolaus But again you may be able to
Mallah,
I agree with Chris. The fastest is to have an in
memory database.
Raid 0 (striping) will speed up both reading and
writing since you have more available disk I/O
bandwidth.
SCSI320 in theory is twice as fast as SCSI160. But the
bottleneck will be the throughput of the individual
raid 0 (striping) spreads the load over multiple spindels, the same way raid 5
does. but raid 5 always needs to calculate parity and write that to it's
parity drive.
RPM isn't that critical, a lot depends on the machine, the processor and the
memory (and the spped with which the processor can
Hi folks,
I have two options:
3*18 GB 10,000 RPM Ultra160 Dual Channel SCSI controller + H/W Raid 5
and
2*36 GB 15,000 RPM Ultra320 Dual Channel SCSI and no RAID
Does anyone opinions *performance wise* the pros and cons of above
two options.
please take in consideration in latter case its
14 matches
Mail list logo
