| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Comments:
<0> hey did MSN just die?
<1> yeah
<0> I don't get roto's joke
<0> does it imply canadians are poor
<1> ?
<0> topic
<1> i got rid of the *** smell in my room finally
<2> i inherited a athlon xp 1700 based system, is it wrothless? should i dump it?
<3> it works why waste it?
<3> u know how many poor kids would love to have a old pos pc?
<3> hnehe
<4> hahah I have a 1700+
<4> I'm too lazy to upgrade
<4> what's an alternative to itunes?
<4> there's a specific one I've been wanting to try but I can't remember the name of it
<4> bleh
<1> g night people
<1> will be back monday night
<5> anyone here subscribe to emusic or know much about it?
<0> how do I insert page before another page in word, when moving the cursor to the top (for pg break) is awkward due to graphics on the page?
<5> is there a way for a business to track the amount of time each person spends on each website?
<1> http://www.1037theq.com/cc-common/hdradio/player1.html?thestation=http://mfile.akamai.com/21875/live/reflector:45953.asx?bkup=45954&prop=n
<1> raw access logs
<5> from say a wingate proxy server log?
<1> i suppose
<6> i have apache installed on windows but i need to set the folder permissions, how can I do that?
<7> Do they have a raid config that kinda like combines the two so it works fore 2 drives.. and let's say if one hard drive is being accessed but the computer needs to acces the hard drive at a different sector it could read off the other hard drive
<7> So instead of striping the files.. it'd mirror them.. and then when it's being accessed it would read half and half like striping.. but if two things were needed at one time it'd read the two things off each hard drive seperatly
<8> I have windows installed on a 30gb part., i wanna make a new 175gb fat32 partition as have it mounted in windows.. how do i do that
<9> z0rz, that is called raid 1
<9> raid1 works exactly this way... data gets mirrored and written at the same time on 2 hdds, but it gets read from both hdds simultaneously to increase performance
<7> hmm
<7> Ahhh.. See I thought Raid 1 just doubled it but didn't give you any performance gain
<9> raid1 is the best for performance, except stripinf of course
<9> and except combinations like raid10 or 0+1
<9> but for the pure raid levels, raid1 is the fastest, and raid5 the slowest
<7> Raid1 is faster that Raid0?
<9> though it depends on the specific situation of course
<9> raid0 is no raid level
<7> ?
<9> raid 0 is striping, and is faster of course
<9> the reason why it has the no. 0 is that it is no real raid
<9> so you can't compare "raid0" with real raid levels
<9> raid 0 is exactly the opposite of raid... it increases perfromance but DECREASES reliability
<7> true
<9> and btw, if you are looking for performance, get a full scsi system instead of thinking about striping
<9> a non-striped scsi system will blow any striped ide system out of the water easily
<7> I have a box sitting beside me (shame it's not mine) that's set up with Raid0+1 .. 4 250gb hd's
<9> so if performance is what you want, think about 4 scsi hdd's as raid 0+1
<7> it's sata2
<9> yeah, that's nice
<7> The Caviar drives
<7> I haven't got to benchmark it yet though
<7> x2 3800+ it is
<7> WD2500KSRTL Caviar SE16
<7> 16mb cache is nice
<10> Im thinking of building a ghetto backup system for work with 4x500gb sata drives with a controller to go to at least 8
<11> :(
<11> i wish i knew what was good
<11> i need a new computer
<11> im 4 years behind
<12> RAID1 is a mirror.
<12> And is no faster than a single drive.
<7> that's what I thought
<12> Correct.
<12> RAID0 is a "Stripe Set", basically, the data is split between the two (or 4 or 6 or 8....etc) drives and its the fastest of the RAID arrays, but also lacks any sort of data protection, so, it is not fault-tolerant.
<7> Too bad there isn't a raid level that gives your mirroring and a performance boost
<12> There is.
<12> Its called RAID5. Stripe set with Parity.
<7> But it's no where close to Raid 0's performance
<7> right?
<12> Its not that far off.
<7> So what does it do?
<12> Depending on the number of drives used.
<12> Well, it works like a RAID0 but as the data is written/read from the other two (or more) drives, there is a "parity" stream of data written to a "middle" drive that allows you to re-create one of the other drives in the event that one of them fails.
<12> RAID1 is just a mirror, basically, you have two drives, and one is a running copy of the other.
<7> Ahh.. so with Raid 5 if you had 3 drives.. let's say 250gb each.. you'd have a total of 500gb available
<9> raid1 is not just a mirror
<9> it mirrors when writing, but reading is different
<9> would be idiotic to do it differently
<7> and if any one of the drives went out.. you could slap another in and it'd rebuild the info that is supposed to be on that drive
<12> RAID 0+1 is a stripe set with a mirror. Basically, you have a RAID0 array (with as many drives as you like) that has a parallel RAID1 array (of an equal number of drives) so that you get RAID 0 performance but also fault-tolerance.
<9> ?? raid
<13> raid == http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/R/RAID.html | http://www.raid.com/04_01_00.html | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundant_array_of_inexpensive_disks | Also see ?? Raid0 | ?? FullRaid | ?? RaidPorts
<12> Ta1oN, the original implementation of RAID1 is nothing but a running mirror.
<9> raid1 is running a mirror
<7> Seems like with Raid 5 if one of the drives could fail.. and the other two could rebuild it.. it's like that drive isn't even needed..
<9> what you seam to miss is that reading and writing is different for each raid level
<9> and it was always this way
<9> quote: "When reading, both disks can be accessed independently. Like RAID 0 the average seek time is reduced by half when randomly reading but because each disk has the exact same data the requested sectors can always be split evenly between the disks and the seek time remains low. The transfer rate would also be doubled. "
<9> and one more thing: the more hdd's you include in a raid1 array, the faster the reading gets
<12> Its up to the controller to implement that feature though.
<9> would be a very dumb controller if he wouldn't do that
<12> Cheap IDE crap isn't going to do redudant reading.
<12> redundant
<9> cause every other raid controller on this planet does it this way
<12> Let me test one, I have an Adaptec 2940 running two RAID1's
<12> I have a Compaq SMART RAID running a RAID 5 in my basement (7 drives) and another Smart RAID in this box running RAID0
<7> How much space do you have?
<12> Enough.
<12> SiSoft Sandra numbers good enough for you?
<9> sure it does
<12> I'm asking.
<12> I'm going to run benchmarks and see, so are SiSoft Sandra numbers good enough or do you want me to use something else?
<9> hm, no offense, but if you are trying to prove me something which is already well known world wide with a benchmark, then just skip it and believe what you want... not worth the time tbh
<9> just use google and read up on a few hundred sites dealing with raid... you'll find the same information probably almost anywhere
<12> I'm simply stating that I've never noticed that the read speed on any of my arrays that are mirrors are any faster than a singular drive.
<9> then you have either a bad configuration, or a bad controller/drives
<9> cause i definitly notice it on my array's
<9> i'm just running a single hdd for the os and a raid1 for the data drive (2 hdd's) at home
<12> What controller are you running?
<9> all 3 hdd's are same model, the raid1 array is definitly faster
<12> This one (the one I'm going to test) is an adaptec 2100S
<12> With 112MB of cache
<9> adaptec aic7899g... it's a compaq server, so it's compaq parts
<12> The drives are all Ultra160
<9> honestly though, if you really don't get better read perfomance with raid1 that without raid, you have some problem with your setup... did you make sure the controller is using most current firmware? did you make sure the drives are defragmented?
<12> Yes.
<12> But, its still controller-dependant.
<12> IE, whether the controller supports concurrent reading from multiple drives in the mirror or if it simply is a "dumb" setup and just constantly copies the reads/writes to the second drive.
<9> yeah, but as i said, it has to be a very ****ty/cheap controller to not do concurrent reads
<12> Never said otherwise :)
<9> and it's still part of the raid1 definition to do concurrent readings... so a controller not doing this is not conforming to the standard
<12> So, on the 2100S, the read is 16MB/sec faster than the write.
<12> And those are Quantum Atlas 10K drives, Ultra160 w/8MB Cache, 10,000RPM
<12> Sequential fairs a tad better.........56MB/sec read, 28MB/sec write
<12> On the drives that don't have Exchange reading/writing to them right now, we get better results:
<12> Buffered Read: 81MB/sec, Buffered Write: 49MB/sec
<12> Sequential Read: 59MB/sec, Sequential Write: 25MB/sec
<12> Random: 45/26
<12> So, does THIS controller support concurrent reads? I would say so.
<9> :)
<12> But, being Adaptec, SCSI, and relatively expensive, I'd expect it to.
<12> So, lets try an el-cheapo High-point controller :)
<12> Integrated into an Abit board :)
<9> ok, there the chance is relativly high that it really does no concurrent reading...
<9> onboard controller ****
<9> s
<12> hehhehe :)
<12> Well, that was my argument :)
<12> Not ALL of them do it!
<12> Cheapo IDE controllers probably won't.
<12> why? Because they are cheapo IDE controllers!
<12> I've been in this chan since 1998 bud :)
<12> When most people come in here asking about RAID questions, they aren't talking about the calibre of RAID controller you have, nor the ones I have in my servers.
<12> They are talking about the "onboard specials" most of the time.
<12> The types of controllers that don't do RAID5, they do mirroring, stripe sets and stripe sets with mirrors, that's about it.
<9> he still asked about the raid levels, and not specific controllers... and raid level 1 includes concurrent reading
<9> if one controller does not implement this, then it is the fault of the controller manufacturer, not of raid level 1
<12> We aren't questioning the definition of the RAID level though.
Return to
#windowsxp
or
Go to some related
logs:
#beginner
#delphi
#red
chubbyloving.com wordlist
lol at spanish person
#politics
#computers
#beginner
#gentoo
#stocks
|
|