On 29.06 11:21, John Halfpenny wrote: > what i +did+ say was that it beats a single ata in terms of general drive > performance. you only have to perform a format to see (at a very basic > level i grant you) that it is faster. Well, format is something specific (for example because % of backup UX-like FS' superblocks lowers with higher capacity, so one big filesystems has less superblocks than two half-sized FS's), but we don't format that often to get big benefit of speeding up this operation :) > your comments about hw raid as not being particularly better are > confusing, as hw raid on a scsi setup will almost certainly beat any ide > configuration you care to mention. this isn't what i've done here, but if > i had the money for a scsi raid card i wouldn't be digging out old kit to > install squid onto. :) You are comparing two uncomparable things. Of course, HW array with faster (and SCSI) disks will work faster than slower (and IDE) disks. What I want to say is: when we already do have some disks, it's more effective to create filesystems on each of them and use them as separate cache directories than playing with HW/SW stripping. And we don't have to buy HW RAID card. And if any of disks fails, we'll only loose part of our cache. > the downside of a lost cache through raid0 is a risk that we have to face > through lack of funds, and i'm prepared to mount another drive in place of > the raid should it go down, which would only take a few minutes. IT will take a few minutes even as a separate drive, and while you'll create FS on it, SQUID can run without that particular cache_dir. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@xxxxxxxxxxx ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. "Two words: Windows survives." - Craig Mundie, Microsoft senior strategist "So does syphillis. Good thing we have penicillin." - Matthew Alton
