RE: [squid-users] CPU utilization performance issue

Hi Adam,
 
--- Adam Aube <aaube@firstindependent.net> wrote: >
>For caching disks:-
> >in order of preference for performance
> >1)volume(best, unless your data REALLY critical,
> then
> >go down the list)
> >2)raid 1(mirror, very costly)
> >3)raid 5
> >4)raid 0(i was surprised when i first heard it,
> can't
> >quite remember the reason)
>
> How can RAID0 have worse performance than RAID5?
Ok maybe I am wrong, raid 5 is worst, from what henrik
said in
http://www.mail-archive.com/squid-users@squid-cache.org/msg05451.html.
Sorry.

> RAID0 was
> designed to optimize disk write performance by
> striping writes
> across multiple disks.
>
> I would think that RAID0 would at least outperform
> RAID1.
raid in squid is for redundancy(if at all needed)
only. and the preferred would be mirror/raid 0.

pls see
http://squid.bilkent.edu.tr/mail-archive/squid-users/200305/0458.html
and
http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200206/0121.html
>
> Do you have any benchmark data on this?
No I dun. What I gathered is from this mailing list. I
mostly based my findings on what Henrik says, which
would be one of the most reliable source, being a
developer! Do you, for your points above, wrt FOR
CACHING operations? Would be most interested! TIA.

Just like to say that different RAID systems performs
differently for different applications. Why not we
move on, knowing that(from the links abv and also
http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200206/0121.html
):-
1)use volume for caching disks,
2)else if redundancy needed, use mirror/raid 1.
Period.

--
Wolf
p.s.pls note that i have based my points from what a
squid developer, Mr Henrik, had pointed out; The
reason being simple, I have great faith in him. Any
mistakes in this process is solely mine. 
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send free SMS from your PC!
http://sg.sms.yahoo.com