From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 17 22:07:21 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19A6716A41A for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:07:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@webtent.net) Received: from esmtp.webtent.net (esmtp.webtent.net [208.38.145.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 107F913C442 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:07:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@webtent.net) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by esmtp.webtent.net (WebTent ESMTP Postfix Internet Mail Gateway) with ESMTP id 6D32F800A1; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:07:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from esmtp.webtent.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx1.webtent.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 52122-07-2; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:07:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from [70.110.70.43] (columbus.webtent.org [70.110.70.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by esmtp.webtent.net (WebTent ESMTP Postfix Internet Mail Gateway) with ESMTP id E95EB7FE43; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:07:04 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Fitzpatrick To: Wojciech Puchar 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> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: WebTent Networking, Inc. Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:07:04 -0500 Message-Id: <1200607624.7281.95.camel@columbus.webtent.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: WebTent Mailguard 1.0.2a Cc: FreeBSD Subject: Re: db performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert@webtent.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:07:21 -0000 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