Results 51 to 72 of 72
-
08-02-2012, 02:07 PM #51Problem Solver
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- California USA
- Posts
- 13,681
-
08-02-2012, 04:35 PM #52Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Posts
- 1,143
Your 1tb might do around 30 megs max if It's multiple users downloadning.. If you add users uploading aswell you'll most likely end up closer to maxing a 100Mbit link.. Raid 10 for storage/serving files and a ssd disc for your encoding - imo
-
08-02-2012, 10:22 PM #53Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Posts
- 262
That was the case before funkywizard (strongly recommended if you want a host that know i/o performance) IOFLOOD.com
and others helped me with this. If you look at my atop you can see I am doing more than 30megs.
-
08-03-2012, 02:38 AM #54Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Posts
- 1,143
Yeah, saw that - was on my iphone in bed just browsing and a bit tired. My bad
/maze
-
08-03-2012, 05:58 AM #55Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
- Location
- Behind you...
- Posts
- 356
Interesting topic about the different raid advantages and disadvantages!
file1.info :: 50GB secure cloudstorage with filemanager
-
08-10-2012, 03:07 AM #56Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Posts
- 262
Hello all,
i have gotten a new server and host agreed to install the Sodtware RAID1 (not fakeraid) with a 2MB strip size.
Now that they have finished I get the following output
Code:[root@50 ~]# cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1] 511988 blocks super 1.0 [2/2] [UU] md1 : active raid1 sdb2[1] sda2[0] 1953000316 blocks super 1.1 [2/2] [UU] [==>..................] resync = 11.8% (231827264/1953000316) finish=226.8min speed=126443K/sec bitmap: 14/15 pages [56KB], 65536KB chunk unused devices: <none>
1. Isn't this chunk size way to bigger than the requested 2MB?
2. also what is the resync and bitmap info say about this setup?
Thanks in advance
-
08-10-2012, 03:28 PM #57IOFLOOD.com -- We Love Servers
Phoenix, AZ Dedicated Servers in under an hour
★ Ryzen 9: 7950x3D ★ Dual E5-2680v4 Xeon ★
Contact Us: sales@ioflood.com ★
-
08-10-2012, 06:23 PM #58Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Posts
- 262
-
08-10-2012, 06:32 PM #59
The only configuration for raid 1 that would be helpful is to increase the linux readahead value to 512k, which you can do with the following command:
blockdev --setra 1024 /dev/sda
blockdev --setra 1024 /dev/sdb
blockdev --setra 1024 /dev/sda1
blockdev --setra 1024 /dev/sda1
blockdev --setra 1024 /dev/sda2
blockdev --setra 1024 /dev/sda2
blockdev --setra 1024 /dev/md0
blockdev --setra 1024 /dev/md1
etc (do this essentially for each partition and each raid volume)
The above won't "stick" between reboots, so you can make this change permanent by editing /etc/rc.d/rc.local and adding those commands above to it.IOFLOOD.com -- We Love Servers
Phoenix, AZ Dedicated Servers in under an hour
★ Ryzen 9: 7950x3D ★ Dual E5-2680v4 Xeon ★
Contact Us: sales@ioflood.com ★
-
08-10-2012, 11:17 PM #60Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Posts
- 262
-
08-10-2012, 11:46 PM #61
I accidnetally duplicated sda1 and sda2 twice. One should be sda1 / sda2 and another should be sdb1 / sdb2
IOFLOOD.com -- We Love Servers
Phoenix, AZ Dedicated Servers in under an hour
★ Ryzen 9: 7950x3D ★ Dual E5-2680v4 Xeon ★
Contact Us: sales@ioflood.com ★
-
08-29-2012, 10:22 AM #62Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Posts
- 361
Sorry for jumping in, assuming i am only serving a few numbers of files, and the total size of all files (100MB) fits well within the system Memory capacity (512MB).
Then could i assume that all file will be served from cache / Ram?
And therefore speed of Disk does not come into the equation?
Would CPU speed ever become a bottleneck? Let say i am only running on a Single Core Atom?
-
08-29-2012, 08:36 PM #63New Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Posts
- 4
-
09-20-2012, 03:50 PM #64Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Posts
- 262
Hello, I am back here to get some of your expertise regarding a RAID 10 setup.
It was pointed out that stripe size of 2MB is recommended for a software RAID 10 and for Hardware RAID10 we should go with the maximum stripe size allowed by the controller.
I have an issue where I paid $$ for a HW raid controller which only support a max stripe size of 256K
What should I do in this case to get the best performance?
Should I cancel the Hardware RAID controller and go with software raid?
Thanks in advance.
-
09-20-2012, 03:55 PM #65IOFLOOD.com -- We Love Servers
Phoenix, AZ Dedicated Servers in under an hour
★ Ryzen 9: 7950x3D ★ Dual E5-2680v4 Xeon ★
Contact Us: sales@ioflood.com ★
-
09-20-2012, 04:34 PM #66Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Posts
- 262
Thanks a lot for the reply. Wish they had a thanks button for profiles.
-
09-20-2012, 04:40 PM #67
Glad to help : )
IOFLOOD.com -- We Love Servers
Phoenix, AZ Dedicated Servers in under an hour
★ Ryzen 9: 7950x3D ★ Dual E5-2680v4 Xeon ★
Contact Us: sales@ioflood.com ★
-
09-21-2012, 08:04 AM #68Newbie
- Join Date
- Jul 2012
- Location
- Europe
- Posts
- 21
Wow, It depends on many things.. Its very hard for me to answer right away, I might get back to this one..
-
09-21-2012, 02:34 PM #69Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Posts
- 262
RAID 10 resync
Hi All, Had setup software raid10 and I see the partition is re-syncing. Is resyncing done in the case of repairing the partition? or is it normal for it to run after the raid10 installation for the first time?
Code:[root@server ~]# cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid10] [raid1] md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdc1[2] sdd1[3] sdb1[1] 487360 blocks [4/4] [UUUU] md2 : active raid10 sdc3[2] sda3[0] sdb3[1] sdd3[3] 5843927040 blocks super 1.2 2048K chunks 2 near-copies [4/4] [UUUU] [===>.................] resync = 15.3% (896459072/5843927040) finish=74870.8min speed=1100K/sec md1 : active raid10 sdc2[2] sda2[0] sdb2[1] sdd2[3] 15621120 blocks super 1.1 512K chunks 2 near-copies [4/4] [UUUU] unused devices: <none>
Thanks.
-
12-07-2012, 11:52 PM #70Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Posts
- 262
-
12-08-2012, 12:04 AM #71
There is no additional performance benefit when you use a readahead larger than 512KB, and in fact you can lose performance in some cases because you'll have to read the same data more than once if your readaheads are taking up too much ram. With a 2MB stripe and a 512k readahead, approximately 25% of your read requests will cross a stripe boundary, so 75% of the time, one read request causes one disk i/o on one drive, and 25% of the time you'll get one disk i/o on each of two drives. A 4mb stripe should drop this to 12.5%. So for 10 reads, instead of 12.5 i/o requests, you'd have 11.25 i/o requests. So potentially a 4MB stripe might be a little faster in this use pattern than a 2MB stripe, but it's a pretty small difference and there might be negative performance from having the stripe be too large, so I'd say 2MB is a safe bet. You could use 4MB if you want, I would expect that to be fine too, but I haven't tested that. Anything above 4MB when you have a 512k readahead won't do much for you. A readahead above 512k won't do much for you either.
IOFLOOD.com -- We Love Servers
Phoenix, AZ Dedicated Servers in under an hour
★ Ryzen 9: 7950x3D ★ Dual E5-2680v4 Xeon ★
Contact Us: sales@ioflood.com ★
-
12-08-2012, 10:31 PM #72Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Posts
- 262
Thank you again!
Similar Threads
-
Cant change ftp port, chkserv.d/ftpd file always back using original file
By basketmen in forum Hosting Security and TechnologyReplies: 2Last Post: 02-24-2012, 12:04 AM -
Need a Dedicated Server: 2x Quad Core, 12-16GB RAM, 3TB+ HDD, 1Gbps Port, 20TB+ BW
By HyperVMart in forum Dedicated ServerReplies: 21Last Post: 08-27-2010, 07:36 PM -
Managed Server 10mbits-port,20mbits-port,50mbits-port,100mbits-port Unmetered
By internetport in forum Dedicated Hosting OffersReplies: 0Last Post: 11-22-2008, 07:38 AM -
Dual 1GHZ P3 1GB Memory 40GB HDD CentOS/Ubuntu Server 100MBIT Port
By seasideintl in forum Dedicated Hosting OffersReplies: 3Last Post: 04-04-2008, 05:08 PM -
Server suddenly Bottleneck
By spikeyspy in forum Dedicated ServerReplies: 2Last Post: 12-29-2004, 01:53 PM