Re: [SLE] Raid 0 speed question
From: H du Plooy (linuser_at_ananzi.co.za)
To: email@example.com Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 17:10:47 +0200
On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 00:31, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> The 03.09.29 at 20:15, H du Plooy wrote:
> > 2. Use kernel software raid to mirror the current Western Digital
> > Caviar 5400rpm 2mb cache 10gb drive with a 10gb partition on a new (but
> > now very cheap) 5400rpm 40gb drive. The remaining 30gb on the new disc
> > would be /home
> > Which setup would be faster?
> A mirror is not faster: write operations have to be done on both hard
> disks. At best, it will be the same. Read opertions could be faster,
> perhaps. A raid 5 setup (which is not a mirror) of three disks on three
> separate cables (IDE) should be faster.
> Another solution: distribute your partitions. For example, you can have
> /opt in one disk, and the rest on the other: X environment and
> applications start faster. Swap partitions can also be distributed.
I'm sorry, I confused two things when writing my question. I meant
(hope I have the number right!) Raid-0 i.e. two partitions on two
seperate discs as one of double the size - and hopefully double the
speed. What I meant to write is that I would not need or want to mirror
the disc, as most of the stuff on the disc is replaceable: music
collection which I own all the CDs of, e-mail foder which I back up to
CD once or twice a week, same for docs and pics, the rest is just the OS
installation and settings which would take some time to set up again,
but no big loss if something breaks.
Thing is I'm not thinking of buying an PCI Raid controller - for the
price difference I could just as well get a 7200rpm 8mb cache drive.
What I would really like to know is how stiping (sp?) the 5400rpm discs
with kernel based software raid would perform compared to a new 7200rpm
disc. The ones I've built into new machines lately - mostly the
standard Seagate 7200rpm 2mb cache models - are really much faster than
the drive I have.
Thanks for the suggestions. Distributing partitions over discs is
another option, but finding a good solution will take time. Which
filesystems will get used more? I assume with local mail delivery +
spamassasin, /var would get used heavily, and I use a fair bit of swap.
Put them on seperate discs, or both on the faster of the two drives? Or
shall I use the slower disc for the filesystems that get read more often
and the faster disc for the filesystems that get written to more often?
I have a feeling the time I would spend figuring out the best partition
sceme wouldn't be worth the money I save. It is definitely something
that I'd like to get to know inside out, but I can't afford the time for
that just now.
Thanks for the ideas!
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: email@example.com