Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:07:04 -0500 From: Robert Fitzpatrick <lists@webtent.net> To: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Cc: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: db performance Message-ID: <1200607624.7281.95.camel@columbus.webtent.org> In-Reply-To: <20080117224645.D5606@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <1200602606.7281.48.camel@columbus.webtent.org> <20080117221629.Y5573@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <1200605532.7281.74.camel@columbus.webtent.org> <20080117224645.D5606@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 22:49 +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >> is used)? what is more stupid? whould we vote? > > > > That was my whole point of showing you the low usage. I take that as a > > yes, RAID 1+0 would provide a dramatic difference in speed, thanks! > > the only adventage of RAID-5 is less "wasted" space than RAID-1. one and > the only adventage. write performance is terrible on small writes - > exactly what happens on database usage. > > with today sizes of disks more "wasted" space doesn't make much a problem, > as i don't think your database have hundreds of gigabytes. > > did you look how much disks (no matter what RAID or just devices) are > actually used?! > > use systat Using 'systat -iostat' it shows mostly idle with 25-70 MB/s on the aacd0 array. Most of time above 50. Thanks for the help! -- Robert
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1200607624.7281.95.camel>