Author: Brian Debelius <bdebelius AT intelesyscorp DOT com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:55:13 -0500
Hello, I am currently running Ubuntu. The bacula director and sd are on this box. I have bacula configured to spool to this box, and then it goes directly to tape. I want to change how I am backing u
Author: "Jeff Kalchik" <jkalchik AT frontiernet DOT net>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:27:31 -0600 (CST)
*NEVER* use software RAID if you can avoid it. Software RAID puts a pretty good hit right on your CPU. Jeff Kalchik -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The
Author: "John Drescher" <drescherjm AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:39:42 -0500
In linux, I find this to be completely wrong. I have 15TB of software raid 6 and the most load that it puts on the cpu is around 7% and these are raid arrays that net over 200MB/s writes on single c
Normally I would say, 1) Performance generally ie cpu hit is not a huge issue IMHO, especially with todays dual and quad core cpus...and of course ram is dirt cheap. 2) For me the big issues is Ive l
Author: "John Drescher" <drescherjm AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:04:20 -0500
Depends on what level of performance you are looking for. My director is a 2 processor 2GHz opteron machine (circa 2003) with 4 GB of memory and 18 or so x 250 GB SATA 1 drives in raid 6. My main st
Author: Brian Debelius <bdebelius AT intelesyscorp DOT com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:51:49 -0500
So what do you think a reasonable cpu for bacula would be? -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MI
Dear "Jeff Kalchik", He. So what does me a h/w RAID controller good when I find myself having the system in 90% I/O wait? On a file server (that does not perform other services which would utilize th
Author: Steven Jones <thing AT thing.dyndns DOT org>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:35:23 +1300
depends on what you are backing up. If its network backup your network is likely to be the first limit... I have a dual core 1.6Ghz cerelon with 2.5gb of ram, my bottleneck is my scsi disks.....so if
Perhaps this applies to some versions of RAID and some implementations of software RAID. It certainly does not apply to simple RAID (such as RAID-1) and fine implementations of software such as FreeB
Author: "Lukasz Szybalski" <szybalski AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 21:46:46 -0600
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:04 PM, John Drescher <drescherjm AT gmail DOT com> wrote: I would go with software raid, no need to spend extra money unless you already have one, then go ahead. See/compare
That hasn't been true in Linux for a number of years. Given a "modern" machine (less than 2-5 years old) _and sufficient ram_, Linux software raid is a great deal faster than most cheap dedicated har
I'm running spooling on a 4 drive software raid0 quite happily on a 4Gb 3GHz P4D machine. The limiting factors are disk head seek time(*) when running concurrent backups to 2 LTO2 drives and availabl
Ubuntu _is_ Debian, more or less. There's plenty of configurability in the drive setup and I setup raid1 on my personal machine in about 5 minutes during the installation procedure (it took longer to
Author: Brian Debelius <bdebelius AT intelesyscorp DOT com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:57:24 -0500
Well right now I have an old Asus k8v-se which has an Athlon 64 processor. So from the conversation, it seems that it should be enough for software raid. But the basboard has only 2 sata ports, and 2
Author: "John Drescher" <drescherjm AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:35:39 -0500
Some of my raid older servers are very similar to this motherboard with Athlon64 3000 chips. Use the raid ports in sata (probably called jbod) mode. bandwidth to the drives that are hung off that to
Lukasz Szybalski wrote: On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:04 PM, John Drescher <drescherjm AT gmail DOT com> wrote: So what do you think a reasonable cpu for bacula would be? Depends on what level of performa
I've been wondering about those, but was thinking it would be better used as DB storage for Mysql, where I/Os per second is going to be more important than throughput. I see your point, though, where
There's no way in the world that I'd put any Database on RAID0, for pretty obvious reasons. In the case of Mysql, the biggest win will be simply having enough memory to prevent the system from paging
I still have got to see a reasonable priced SSD' disk that can deliver around 100MB/s both ways at the same time. http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-64gb-ssd-performance-benchmarks-278717/ I have beefe
There aren't any mechanical disks which can do it either. Which is why I'm not trying to do that - replacing 4 RAID0 mechanical disks with 4 SSDs will provide similar sustained throughput to the mech