Re: disk-pool performance
1999-09-07 05:19:38
If I had it my way I'd have a four channel scsi system setup as as
follows:
channel 0, 2 disks RAID-1 for system software and applications
channel 1, 3+ disks RAID-0 for primary ADSM DB + LOG
channel 2, 3+ disks RAID-0 for secondary ADSM DB + LOG
(let ADSM do the mirroring)
channel 3, 6+ disks RAID-5 for diskpools.
if I had 3 channels I'd put system soft+ apps on the RAID-5.
I agree with 'Yikes' about the RAID-5 (I'm talking hardware RAID not
NT RAID) bit if I had less than 6 drives to put into the RAID-5 but
I'm very cautious where it concerns the possible loss of user data due
to a disk crash (the user that deleted his file that was backed up
yesterday but of which the file never reached the tape pool because a
disk in the diskpool crashed, this scenario keeps haunting my mind).
As for ther reflecting spindles, I have no problem with this when
configuring ADSM on AIX combined with SSA disks but I feel very
uncomfortable with this thought doing it on NT.
some more reflection please,
Walter Ridderhof
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: disk-pool performance
Author: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> at INET-1
Date: 9/6/99 11:16 AM
=> On Mon, 6 Sep 1999 09:28:20 -0500, Nathan King <nathan.king AT USAA DOT COM>
said:
> Yikes.. you made your diskpools RAID5 on NT. NT is slow enough without
> having to make it's DISKPOOL RAID5. I'd go for RAID0 for diskpools and if I
> had the money RAID0+1 for a bit of fault tolerance.
> I suppose that depends upon how critical you view your diskpools. To me the
> diskpool is just a temp. staging area therefore in the event that I lost a
> disk, I'd re-do my diskpool and rerun last night's backup.
I echo 'yikes'; I'd add to this that even if my disk pools weren't short-term
storage, it'd be cheaper and faster to make vigorous use of copy pools, rather
than RAID the storage volumes.
> As far as DB and Logs, I don't think that anyone can afford to be as risky
> as RAID0. However again RAID5 would be my last choice here. I'd rather go
> with a RAID1. [ ... cogent discussions elided ... ]
I differ with you on this because I anticipate that ADSM will perform best if
I give it as much data about my underlying system as possible. I use ADSM
mirroring instead of any RAIDing, on the presumption that ADSM will do it
better.
Similarly, I try to have my storage volumes reflect something about the
underlying spindles.
Allen S. Rout
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: disk-pool performance, (continued)
- Re: disk-pool performance, ADSML
- Re: disk-pool performance, Viswanathan, Ramesh (CNA)
- Re: disk-pool performance, Allen S. Rout
- Re: disk-pool performance, Viswanathan, Ramesh (CNA)
- Re: disk-pool performance, Joshua Bassi
- Re: disk-pool performance, Nathan King
- Re: disk-pool performance, Walter Ridderhof
- Re: disk-pool performance, Allen S. Rout
- Re: disk-pool performance, Paul Fielding
- Re: disk-pool performance, Joshua Bassi
- Re: disk-pool performance,
Walter Ridderhof <=
- Re: disk-pool performance, ADSM : Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L
- Re: disk-pool performance, ADSM : Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L
|
|
|