Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 12:03:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Cassandra Perkins <cassy@loop.com> To: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: RAID Controller Product Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.961002113008.10691A-100000@patty.loop.net> In-Reply-To: <199610021327.IAA05083@brasil.moneng.mei.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Joe Greco wrote: > > > > I am curious as to why you would choose to do this. > > If you currently have your I/O spread amongst several machines, you gain > from having the data replicated. If you have N machines, you have > approximately N times the I/O bandwidth available as compared to a > solution where you only have the main system's I/O bandwidth available. > [snip] Considering the constant growth of Usenet, it seemed better to use the extra drives, required to duplicate the number of articles, to increase storage and time articles are kept on the server. We would still have multiple machines handling news request, however, the articles would be on the raid-controlled fileserver. As for the fault tolerance issue, must problems I've seen with servers going down are due to failed drives. So using RAID level 5 I hoped would reduce the down time considerably. Although, this is less of a benefit if the RAID controller had poor or non-comparable I/O performance than concatenated drives (ccd). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Cassandra M. Perkins | People usually get what's coming to | | Network Operations | them... unless it's been mailed. | | The Loop Internet Switch Co., LLC | -fortune | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.961002113008.10691A-100000>