Hi! On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Amos Jeffries <squ...@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:43:33 -0430, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa > <ildefonso.cama...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi! >> >> In my own personal opinion: your hard drive alone is not enough to >> handle that much traffic (110MBytes/s, ~1Gbps). See, most SATA hard >> drives (7200rpm) gives around 50~70MB/s *sequential* read speed, your >> cache reads are *not* sequential, so, it will be slower. In my >> opinion, you need something like a 8 drives RAID10 array, and/or use >> faster disks (10k), or maybe 15k SAS disks. >> >> Also, I would put a minimum object size for disk of 1M, and a maximum >> object size of whatever you want (this depends on your network, but >> usually ~150MB is enough to fit almost any upgrade download). And for >> RAM, I would put a maximum object size of 1M, with no minimum. Thus, >> keeping small files out of the disk cache. > > The COSS storage type he has setup already does this very efficiently with > added disk-backing of the COSS chunks for cross-restart recovery of the > cache.
Yeah, I missed that last night (I was sleepy, I guess), thanks God you people are around!. Still, he would need faster disk access, unless he is talking about 110Mbps (~12MB/s) instead of 110MB/s (~1Gbps). So, Robert, is that 110Mbps or 1Gbps? Thanks! Ildefonso.
