Date: Sat, 19 Oct 96 14:42:29 -0500 From: Ben Black <black@gage.com> To: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> Cc: fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ccd setup for striping Message-ID: <9610191942.AA01614@squid.gage.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.95.961018204227.13041B-100000@sasami.jurai.net> References: <Pine.BSI.3.95.961018204227.13041B-100000@sasami.jurai.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--NeXT-Mail-466589079-1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline >When you have 150,000 customers news is a high availability application. >(I don't have this problem yet, but know people who do.) when you have 150k customers you have more than one news server. >I'd like to see your hard numbers as to the 'software RAID killing >performance'. Its had the opposite effect here. Of course, we're not >running RAID5, just interleaving. "just interleaving" doesn't give you any redundancy, now does it? RAID 5 is all about parity calculations. we used sun online disk suite to do a software RAID on one of several news servers. performance was far better simply distributing the news groups across drives intelligently. >I'm sorry, but a high end news server is seek bound. > >Run some tests on a test platform before you make statements about >performance. yes, assuming you aren't recalculating parity every time to read or write data, it is seek bound. to eliminate the massive seek bottleneck, get rid of the filesystem. that's what we did. as i've said before, 6 million articles per day on a P5-120 with 64MB RAM. then we ran out of articles. load average under 2.0. i know about new server performance. any questions? b3n --NeXT-Mail-466589079-1 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline <smaller>>When you have 150,000 customers news is a high availability application. <nofill> >(I don't have this problem yet, but know people who do.) when you have 150k customers you have more than one news server. >I'd like to see your hard numbers as to the 'software RAID killing >performance'. Its had the opposite effect here. Of course, we're not >running RAID5, just interleaving. </nofill> "just interleaving" doesn't give you any redundancy, now does it? RAID 5 is all about parity calculations. we used sun online disk suite to do a software RAID on one of several news servers. performance was far better simply distributing the news groups across drives intelligently. <nofill> >I'm sorry, but a high end news server is seek bound. > >Run some tests on a test platform before you make statements about >performance. </nofill> yes, assuming you aren't recalculating parity every time to read or write data, it is seek bound. to eliminate the massive seek bottleneck, get rid of the filesystem. that's what we did. as i've said before, 6 million articles per day on a P5-120 with 64MB RAM. then we ran out of articles. load average under 2.0. i know about new server performance. any questions? b3n </smaller> --NeXT-Mail-466589079-1--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9610191942.AA01614>