On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 11:26 AM, John Drescher <drescherjm AT gmail DOT com> 
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Chris Picton <chris AT ecntelecoms DOT com> 
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 09:09 -0400, John Drescher wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Alan Brown <ajb2 AT mssl.ucl.ac DOT uk> 
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, John Drescher wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> BTW, I would never use raid0 or LVM (without every PV being raided)
>>> >> for backup data that I cared about.
>>> >
>>> > Spooled data isn't exactly worth keeping. After a bacula restart the
>>> > contents of those directories are useless anyway.
>>> >
>>> I believe the user was considering putting his disk volumes on a raid
>>> 0 ( or disk spanning lvm) because his raid5 write speed was too slow.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> Just to report back:
>>
>> I have decided to go with software raid 5, with ext3
>>
>> Hardware raid 5 (even though it is proper battery backed hardware raid)
>> was too slow (I got a maximum of 60 MB/s throughput)
>>
> I believe this is a driver issue. Specifically the driver not using
> the cache in write mode. I have seen these kinds of problems with
> 3ware cards as well on some linux message boards as well.

Could you specify the hardware raid you are using: name, model, version#?

Thanks,
Lucas

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users