<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif">That's a pretty interesting statement. I can usually get a good 70mbs throughput when reading large files.<BR><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif">----- Original Message ----<BR>From: Bill York <iago@pobox.com><BR>To: NMGLUG.org mailing list <nmglug@nmglug.org><BR>Sent: Friday, December 1, 2006 3:31:13 PM<BR>Subject: Re: [nmglug] RAID5 - ATA vs SATA<BR><BR>btw, 100mb is the theoretical throughput. you'll never see more than about 40mb, conventional drivers suck.<BR><BR>bill<BR><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 12/1/06, <B class=gmail_sendername>Tim Emerick</B> <<A href="mailto:timothyemerick@yahoo.com" target=_blank rel=nofollow>timothyemerick@yahoo.com</A>> wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman,new york,times,serif">
<DIV>I've been contemplating converting my 2 disk raid1 to a 4 disk raid5. Couple of questions to those in the know.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Machine: Intel P4 1.5Ghz Stepping 02, 512meg ram, 2-WD 80GB UDMA/100 raid1 mirror using debian testing.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Usage: General office/campus use as a samba file server. About 150 PC's connected to it with maybe 20-30 users max performing simultaneous read/writes. Activity is mostly database type with small read/writes. Others are accessing office type documents. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>With a 4 disk raid5 array (safety matters ya know). Will I notice a huge difference in read/write speed from what I have now or just nominal?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Does SATA vs ATA make a big difference?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm pretty sure the bottleneck at this point is the sluggish disk access but how can I verify that it's the disks and not a saturated network connection? I've been using a utility called bwm-ng to monitor bandwidth and have not seen it come close to the 100mb/s that my NIC is rated. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks for any insights.</DIV><SPAN>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Tim Emerick</DIV></SPAN><SPAN>
<DIV> </DIV></SPAN></DIV><SPAN><BR>
<HR SIZE=1>
Want to start your own business? Learn how on <A href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=41244/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index" target=_blank rel=nofollow>Yahoo! Small Business. </A></SPAN></DIV><SPAN></SPAN><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>nmglug mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:nmglug@nmglug.org" target=_blank rel=nofollow>nmglug@nmglug.org</A><BR><A href="http://www.nmglug.org/mailman/listinfo/nmglug" target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://www.nmglug.org/mailman/listinfo/nmglug</A><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>
<DIV>_______________________________________________<BR>nmglug mailing list<BR>nmglug@nmglug.org<BR><A href="http://www.nmglug.org/mailman/listinfo/nmglug" target=_blank>http://www.nmglug.org/mailman/listinfo/nmglug</A></DIV></DIV><BR></DIV></div><br>
<hr size=1>Check out <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43257/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta">the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta</a> - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.</body></html>