Frank Wille <frank%phoenix.owl.de@localhost> writes: > Greg Toxel wrote: > >> I always go for RAIDframe and RAID-1; disks are free compared to labor >> hours. I have used it for a long time, probably 2001ish, and it's been >> solid. One of the benefits is that a NetBSD kernel with EITHER of >> those disks in any random box will work. > > Sounds good. But how about the performance? A 1.6 GHz Atom 330 is not the > fastest, and it has to serve many SQL, POP3 and HTTP requests at once. > Would I notice a massive slowdown compared to the hardware-approach? I first used this on a 1.6 GHz athlon in 2001 - CPU will not be a problem. RAID-1 writes to both disks and reads from one or the other, and doesn't do anything complicated. So the only problem that tends to happen is erratic system operation when your power supply is marginal because of the simultaneous writes. Read may actually be faster - I'm not clear on how raidframe dispatches read requests to multiple components of a mirror. RAID-5 is an entirely different story. In RAIDframe I avoid it.
Description: PGP signature