> >don't raid0/raid5 your cache disks. squid has more cache-disks
> >functionality that's better (faster and more secure) than raid0, and
> >raid5 KILLS I/O performance.
On 29.06.06 12:42, Chris Robertson wrote:
> And RAID1 is not optimal (I hesitate to say "bad") for writes.
> Besides, cached data is very transient, and doesn't need the security
> that RAID1 provides. Hence, don't bother with RAID for cache disks... :o)
RAID1 is fast for reads, so the more hits you have, the more it helps :)
RAID1 is safe against disk outages (if you care about data in your cache).
=>
RAID1 is OK in some cases, others are not.
-- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Nothing is fool-proof to a talented fool.Received on Fri Jun 30 2006 - 10:47:35 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Sat Jul 01 2006 - 12:00:02 MDT