[luau] INFO: Heavy duty storage needs

[MonMotha]

It's humungously overpowered :)

The proxying can be a bit harsh at times though.  As I said, it is on a 
1gbit link to the LAN.

--MonMotha

Dustin Cross wrote:
> How much mail does it send?  That is a monster machine for just mail and
> proxy, unless you has TONS of users!
> 
> Dusty
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>I'm glad someone liked my explanation :)
>>
>>
>>I recently built a nice dualie AMD 1.4GHz, 2GB DDR, with 2xU160 36GB
>>15kRPM hard drives.  It's (among other things) a proxy server and
>>mailer.  Proxying, especially when also doing mail, involves some
>>bandwidth (but not excessive, it's only a 1gbit uplink to the LAN), but
>> it also involves a lot of seeking.  The tagged command queuing and
>>reduced seek times of the SCSI drives are a big advantage on this
>>puppy.
>>
>>--MonMotha
>>
>>R. Scott Belford wrote:
>>
>>>I have searched for such a concise and practical explanation of why
>>>SCSI  is accepted as the better storage solution for high-intensive
>>>seeks.   Now I understand.  Thanks for explaining this so clearly.
>>>
>>>On Thursday, May 2, 2002, at 12:46 PM, MonMotha wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is true.  In terms of raw I/O speed, IDE drives have caught up
>>>>with SCSI.  The reason?  The bus is no longer the bottleneck.  Even
>>>>the best of SCSI drives would have trouble saturating a 100MB/sec bus
>>>> (though SCSI is 160).  If all you need is raw I/O speed (which is a
>>>>good chunk of what your average single user desktop will be working
>>>>with, especially if they're doing a lot of multimedia), IDE drives
>>>>are  a great choice (especialy combined with a software RAID
>>>>solution, such  as the Linux software RAID or some of the software
>>>>"RAID" cards that  are now out for the 'dozers).
>>>>
>>>>SCSI shows it's strength in Tagged Command Queueing.  Unlike IDE
>>>>devices, SCSI drives can work on more than one command at the same
>>>>time, queueing them up in the best way possible.  For example, an IDE
>>>> system where a person wants to simultaneously (quicker than a single
>>>> seek on the drive) pull information from 10 places on the disk will
>>>>have to do them in the order the system says.  With SCSI, the system
>>>>can send all 10 (or usually 9) requests in quick succession, and the
>>>>drive will service them in the best way possible, minimizing
>>>>redundant  seeking, serving out of cache when possible (often even
>>>>during a seek  for the next command in the queue), etc.  In multiuser
>>>>environments,  this can give SCSI a HUGE advantage over IDE.  SCSI
>>>>drives also tend  to have lower seek times, often due to smaller
>>>>platter sizes rotating  at significantly faster speeds (15,000 RPM
>>>>vs. 7200 or even 5400 RPM).  This is also the reason SCSI drives tend
>>>>to have smaller capacity as  compared to IDE drives while still being
>>>>expensive.  The same
>>>>"technology" has to be used to pack all those bits into a small
>>>>space,  but the overall space is smaller (many SCSI drives could
>>>>almost fit  their platters into 2.5" laptop HDD enclosures, see
>>>>fujisu specs on  platter size).  These lower seek times also help
>>>>performance in  multiuser environments.
>>>>
>>>>Also, though this is not as much of a deal with UDMA IDE, IDE uses
>>>>the  CPU for some of it's processing.  The same things are done on
>>>>SCSI on  the dedicated controller and onboard the drive itself.
>>>>
>>>>Conclusion: Don't assume SCSI is better, but don't assume raw I/O
>>>>bandwidth is the only measure of a hard drive.
>>>>
>>>>--MonMotha
>>>>
>>>>R. Scott Belford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If you intend to record most or all of the traffic moving over your
>>>>>network, you need to spend as much time thinking about your disk
>>>>>subsystem as your processor and Ethernet card. Last year Sandstorm
>>>>>spent several months comparing IDE drives with the UDMA100 interface
>>>>> to SCSI LVD-160 drives. We also explored a variety of RAID systems.
>>>>> The conclusion: today's IDE drives are significantly faster than
>>>>>SCSI  drives costing two or three times more per gigabyte stored.
>>>>>This is not the result we were expecting, and it goes directly
>>>>>against the conventional wisdom that says SCSI is inherently better
>>>>>than IDE. Nevertheless, it does seem to be the ugly truth, at least
>>>>>for straightforward read/write tests in a single-user environment.
>>>>>Although we saw the highest performance with a hardware-based RAID 5
>>>>> system manufactured by _Advanced Computer & Network Corporation_,
>>>>>we  saw nearly the same performance with a RAID 5 system based on
>>>>>the  _3Ware Escalade 7000_ RAID controller.
>>>>>from an article about network data capture at
>>>>>http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a//network/2002/04/26/nettap.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>LUAU mailing list
>>>>LUAU at videl.ics.hawaii.edu
>>>>http://videl.ics.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/luau
>>>>
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>LUAU mailing list
>>>LUAU at videl.ics.hawaii.edu
>>>http://videl.ics.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/luau
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>LUAU mailing list
>>LUAU at videl.ics.hawaii.edu
>>http://videl.ics.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/luau
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LUAU mailing list
> LUAU at videl.ics.hawaii.edu
> http://videl.ics.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/luau
> 
>