Re: Hard Disk Fault Tolerance
- From: <paul_lemonidis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "[ISAserver.org Discussion List]" <isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:45:10 -0800
Hi all
Wouldn't RAID 1+5 be better with the operating system and programs on the
RAID 1 parttiton and the cache on the RAID 5. This is common with Exchange
because of Transaction Log based design of it? I also believe this to be
Microsoft recommendation for genericWindows 2000?
Please feel to correct me if I am msitaken.
Bye for now.
Paul Lemonidis.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Armando Treviño López" <armando.trevino@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ISAserver.org Discussion List]" <isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 10:17 AM
Subject: [isalist] Hard Disk Fault Tolerance
http://www.ISAserver.org
Hi, I had installed ISA in a server configured in Mirrored Volumes Hard
Drives.
I have read in Tom's book that it is better to use RAID 5 Volumes, this
because the access to the cache drive is faster, because it doesn't have to
write in two drives the same information.
Recently I have noted a slower access to Internet in my clients, although I
have incremented the percentage of RAM used for cache.
Do you think that I will get a better performance if I reinstall the hole
server, this time in a RAID 5 volume? or is there another way to solve this
without reinstalling the hole system?
Thanks.
Armando Treviño L.
------------------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to this ISAserver.org Discussion List as:
paul_lemonidis@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')
Other related posts:
