xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: re[2]: [linux-lvm] System Suggestions

To: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: re[2]: [linux-lvm] System Suggestions
From: "Anthony W. Marino" <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 05:07:16 -0500
Cc: Greg Freemyer <freemyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Petro <petro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-lvm@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, mysql@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.BSI.4.10.10203070728480.16043-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: AWM Objects.com
References: <Pine.BSI.4.10.10203070728480.16043-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thursday 07 March 2002 01:32 am, Seth Mos wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Anthony W. Marino wrote:
> > > If you are looking into using the 3Ware controllers watch the
> > > following: The 64xx controllers are underpowered and should better not
> > > be used in raid 5 mode.
> > > The 74xx controllers seem to be good and should be fine with raid5 but
> > > note that raid5 will always have slow write speeds.
> >
> > Is there a way to minimize the write penalty using both XFS and LVM with
> > RAID 5?
>
> Don't use raid5. I always use a combination of raid 1 and 10 for a
> database server. If you have a database that frequently updates records
> you don't want the extra write overhead.
>
> Software raid 1 or 10 will do fine in that case.
> If you have 4 disks you make 2 raid 1 arrays and then stripe those in a
> raid 0. You then have optimum speed at the lowest possible overhead.
>
> Generally that is what you want for a database server.
>
> Cheers
> Seth

I caught a few emails on linux-lvm list where an external log is being used 
as well to better write performance.

Thanks Alot,
Anthony


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>