|
|
|
|
||||
|
Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. |
 |
|
|||||||
| Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed. |
|
|
Thread Tools |
10-05-2006, 11:46 PM
|
#1 |
|
Damn Right I Kiss Ass!
Industry Role:
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cowtown, USA
Posts: 32,428
|
Do you use a RAID array setup for speed?
If you do, which did you go with and did you notice any speed enhancement?
|
|
|
|
10-06-2006, 12:02 AM
|
#2 |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,421
|
RAID 5, huge difference.
__________________
 Naughty America - Director of Technology It's a CELEBRATION bitches!! For the hottest content promote Naughty America! swish at naughtyamerica dot com | ICQ: 226 737 620 | See Who I Am At AdultWhosWho.com! |
|
|
|
|
10-06-2006, 12:19 AM
|
#3 |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: New Jersey - adaptweb at gmail.com
Posts: 3,127
|
Raid 1+0
__________________
self made mothafucka.  buying premium domains & developed sites with revenue/traffic -> adaptweb at gmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
10-06-2006, 12:24 AM
|
#4 | |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: New Jersey - adaptweb at gmail.com
Posts: 3,127
|
Quote:
__________________
self made mothafucka. buying premium domains & developed sites with revenue/traffic -> adaptweb at gmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-06-2006, 12:25 AM
|
#5 |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: buffalo, las vegas. icq: 285808879
Posts: 4,796
|
raid 5 is not the best array for speed.
look on the internet for breakdowns of raid arrays regarding speed vs. data security. if ur interested in speed use raid 0 which offers no failure security but does offer the highest speed of any raid array. |
|
|
|
|
10-06-2006, 12:34 AM
|
#6 | |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: New Jersey - adaptweb at gmail.com
Posts: 3,127
|
Quote:
i really like RAID 1+0.. has some failure security and speed at the expense of usable diskspace.. many people use RAID5 so they only lose one disk of available space (parity).
__________________
self made mothafucka. buying premium domains & developed sites with revenue/traffic -> adaptweb at gmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-06-2006, 12:36 AM
|
#7 |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,142
|
raid +1
raid 5 on linux -1 *power 8 on intel raid 0,1 or 5 does not much mater |
|
|
|
|
10-06-2006, 12:54 AM
|
#8 |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancity
Posts: 1,681
|
we've actually noticed slower performance going with raid 5 over single disk operations.
|
|
|
|
|
10-06-2006, 12:55 AM
|
#9 | |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,142
|
Quote:
thats impossible |
|
|
|
|
|
10-06-2006, 01:04 AM
|
#10 | |
|
Too lazy to set a custom title
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 27,047
|
Quote:
the only way to go...
__________________
Make Money
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-06-2006, 01:37 AM
|
#11 | |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: buffalo, las vegas. icq: 285808879
Posts: 4,796
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-06-2006, 01:46 AM
|
#12 |
|
Too lazy to set a custom title
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 10,127
|
raid 1+0
|
|
|
|
|
10-06-2006, 02:48 AM
|
#13 |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In the walls of your house.
Posts: 3,985
|
When you say "speed" are you referring to transfer or seek speed? There's a big difference between a system that deals with large files read mostly sequentially (ie movies) and a system with lots of small or highly fragmented files (ie a database) where the disk head has to move around a lot.
__________________
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." --H.L. Mencken |
|
|
|
|
10-06-2006, 03:05 AM
|
#14 |
|
Damn Right I Kiss Ass!
Industry Role:
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cowtown, USA
Posts: 32,428
|
Hmm... Looked into it...
Raid 0 - Fastest. Takes 3 disks and uses them in unison. Raid 1 - Slowest. Takes 3 disks and mirrors them. No performance enhancement. Raid 3 - Costs to much and no enhancement. Raid 5 - Reads fast (but not faster) but requires memory and should use more than one controller to keep up with non raid speeds. Raid 1+0 (0+1)(10) - Best of both worlds... But obviously more expensive. |
|
|
|
|
10-06-2006, 03:27 AM
|
#15 | |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Not a Library!
Posts: 9,748
|
Quote:
Raid 1 - Cannot work with 3 disks, must be equal numbers. 2/4/6/8/etc. Great redundancy but expensive (one hd per hd). Slow, but not as slow as Raid 10. Raid 3 - Dunno, havn't had any experience with it. Raid 5 - 3 absolute minimum, 5 recommended minimum (for performance + less loss of storage). Hardware Raid-5 is great, Software Raid-5 is pretty sluggish but still workable. Very redundant, can lose one HD and array be fine. A 5 HD array will lose about 22% of storage to go for redundancy. Raid 1+0 - Same as Raid 3 (that is I don't have enough experience with it to talk about it).
__________________
 |
|
|
|
|
