Megaraid with brakes on?
danno at internet2.edu
Thu Jan 4 08:59:07 CST 2007
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 11:08:55PM -0300, Martin Sarsale wrote:
> >I'm not sure how good the ext3 file system is with loads like that;
> >you might also see improvement with another filesystem. This is worthy
> >of investigation. Also, depending on how random your workload really
> >is you may see improvement by tuning the kernel's metadata buffering
> >(inode & directory caches; i'm not sure exactly what is available).
> can you give me more info about meta data buffering? some keywords
> would be great.
look for inode cache & directory cache.
This article is on topic but for a 2.4 kernel; might be a good
starting point though:
> We're changing servers (not related to this issue) and we'll build a
> RAID10 in the new ones. What do you think it's better, assuming we
> want to have all the disks in a RAID?
> Hardware RAID0 and Software RAID1
> Software RAID0 and Hardware RAID1
> or Hardware RAID10 ?
as i originally wrote, what i think would be best would be hardware RAID1
with software concatenation (which you can do with the linux "md" package;
i think they call it "linear").
This is no less reliable than using RAID0 and my guess is it will work
better than RAID0 for your workload.
Dan Pritts, System Administrator
office: +1-734-352-4953 | mobile: +1-734-834-7224
More information about the Linux-PowerEdge