Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1200607624.7281.95.camel>