We found out to many where not so good i our case... But if we had diffrent size depending on type of file to be cached we manange to improve the speed and have a couple of db files.
But If you run this as virtualized. First thing you should do is IOPS test. This will help you find what size you should use as db file. Kind regards Johan Carlsson Skickat från min Samsung Mobil -------- Originalmeddelande -------- Från: "Adam W. Dace" <[email protected]> Datum: 18-10-2013 18:40 (GMT+01:00) Till: [email protected] Rubrik: Re: ATS Storage Question Yeah, I'm not trying to debate that filesystem is faster than raw disk. It's just not really an option for me. Heck, one of the caches I'm running is completely virtualized. Sorry, no raw disk there. That's why I'm asking about files...did your testing have anything to say about one file versus many? On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Johan Caripson <[email protected]> wrote: I have done lots of test. Go for raw instead! Now with raw i can push 20 Gbit/s From a single sever with fusion-io drive. With storage files we "only" manage to push around 11 Gbit/s We use 900GB cache storage Johan Carlsson 2013/10/18 Adam W. Dace <[email protected]> I've already noticed ATS tends to slow down a bit when using database files above 2GB...but it got me thinking. Does anyone know which would be more efficient: 2 database files at 2GB each...or 4 database files at 1GB each? Thanks In Advance, -- ____________________________________________________________ Adam W. Dace <[email protected]> Phone: (815) 355-5848 Instant Messenger: AIM & Yahoo! IM - colonelforbin74 | ICQ - #39374451 Microsoft Messenger - [email protected] Google Profile: https://plus.google.com/u/0/109309036874332290399/about -- ____________________________________________________________ Adam W. Dace <[email protected]> Phone: (815) 355-5848 Instant Messenger: AIM & Yahoo! IM - colonelforbin74 | ICQ - #39374451 Microsoft Messenger - [email protected] Google Profile: https://plus.google.com/u/0/109309036874332290399/about
