Matthew wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Craig James wrote:
>> Right, I do understand that, but reliability is not a top priority in
>> this system. The database will be replicated, and can be reproduced
>> from the raw data.
>
> So what you're saying is:
>
> 1. Reliability is not important.
> 2. There's zero write traffic once the database is set up.
Well, I actually didn't say either of those things, but I appreciate the feedback. RAID 0 is an interesting
suggestion,but given our constraints, it's not an option. Reliability is important, but not as important as, say, a
bankingsystem.
And as far as zero write traffic, I don't know where that came from. It's a "hitlist" based system, where complex
searchresults are saved for the user in tables, and the write traffic can be quite high.
> If this is true, then RAID-0 is the way to go. I think Greg's options
> are good. Either:
>
> 2 discs RAID 1: OS
> 6 discs RAID 0: database + WAL
>
> which is what we're using here (except with more discs), or:
>
> 8 discs RAID 10: everything
Right now, an 8-disk RAID 10 is looking like the best choice. The Dell Perc 6i has configurations that include a
battery-backedcache, so performance should be quite good.
> However, if reliability *really* isn't an issue, and you can accept
> reinstalling the system if you lose a disc, then there's a third option:
>
> 8 discs RAID 0: Everything
I imagine the MTBF on a system like this would be < 1 year, which is out of the question, even with a backup system
thatcan take over. A failure completely wipes the system, OS and everything, so you're guaranteed that once or twice a
year,you have to rebuild your system from the ground up. I'd rather spend that time at the beach!
Craig
