Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:07:49 -0500 From: "Diego F. Arias R." <dak.col@gmail.com> To: "Josh Paetzel" <jpaetzel@freebsd.org> Cc: Danny Do <ai_quoc@hotmail.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Optimal File System config for 2.5TB RAID5 Message-ID: <3b93bd110809300607i34b26e2cy4648ab1c21bc6ec8@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <48E21C66.8080407@FreeBSD.org> References: <1222681181.48e0a25d094c3@www.inbox.lv> <BAY139-DAV13C8982A51CD9B05C74D5090430@phx.gbl> <48E21C66.8080407@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Josh Paetzel <jpaetzel@freebsd.org> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Danny Do wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I am building a 6x500GB SATA HARDWARE RAID5 storage server to >> - Store large files, 10BM~1GB/file >> - Handling 500+ concurrent connections >> - Transfer rate around 100~200Mbit/s >> >> I am thinking of using the patch from Wojciech Puchar to reduce hard drive >> data seek in order to handle large number of concurrent connections whilst >> outputting 100~200Mbit/s. >> >> patch /usr/src/sys/sys/param.h >> #ifndef DFLTPHYS >> #define DFLTPHYS (1024 * 1024) /* default max raw I/O transfer size >> */ >> #endif >> #ifndef MAXPHYS >> #define MAXPHYS (1024 * 1024) /* max raw I/O transfer size */ >> #endif >> #ifndef MAXDUMPPGS >> >> >> To store files greater than 10MB, I come up with the following proposal for >> my File System: >> - UFS2 >> - Soft Update Enable >> - block-size 1,048,576 >> >> I am not completely sure what advantage I got from this configuration but I >> am pretty sure that FSCK is much quicker with 1M file system block-size. >> >> Is there any other thing I need to consider in term of performance and >> reliability? >> >> I hope that this system will perform much better than my current 6x300GB >> SCSI 10K RPM system. >> >> Appreciate any advice, >> >> Danny > > Why do you think slower drives using an interface that has known > problems handling concurrent connections will be faster than faster > drives using an interface designed for concurrency? > > Based on my experiences with SATA vs. U160/U320 SCSI or SAS your likely > outcome is to see a marked decrease in performance. I'd be interested > to hear your results. > > > - -- > Thanks, > > Josh Paetzel > > PGP: 8A48 EF36 5E9F 4EDA 5ABC 11B4 26F9 01F1 27AF AECB > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) > > iD8DBQFI4hxmJvkB8SevrssRAqErAJ0Tt9WPT25RhkUfGVLxEzSykEMvtwCeKXRV > jdgJ/whLeeAQ3E97i7FkB4w= > =UyD6 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > Interface concurrent connection problems?, do you have a link or something? actually i recommend again the RAID 10, if you want performance for heavy I/O (multiple reading,not only one file lineal reading) for storage intensive apps its the way to go. -- mmm, interesante.....
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3b93bd110809300607i34b26e2cy4648ab1c21bc6ec8>