[THIN] Re: RAID 1
- From: "Joe Shonk" <joe.shonk@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 07:38:16 -0700
It's a very interesting question indeed. Which blades are you using? What
kind of i/o controller?
Putting the pagefile (alone) on a second partition will help performance
with regards that the pagefile will be create as one large continuous(non
fragmented) file.
With some controllers (those with NO cache), you can see an increase in
performance by not using RAID 1 and have two independent spindles and put
the pagefile, temp dirs, and spooler on the second drive. But if you are
going to do that, then why not set it up a RAID 0 with a second partition
for the pagefile. We literally 2x the performance in reads and writes with
the configuration over RAID 1.
Joe
On 4/27/07, Charles Watts <gregwatts77@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We are using HP Blades with RIAD 1 for our Citrix Servers on Windows
Server
2003 SP1. My question is would we get better disk i/o performance if we
partioned the RAID 1 into two partitions and stuck the page file, temp
directories and programs on the second partition? If not has any one used
a
RAMDISK for this? Or is their an argument for eliminating RAID 1
altogether
and just put the page file, temp directories on the second hard drive
(better performance and more disk space). Since I have a boat load of
blades
where is the risk? So I lose one or two drives a year on my servers and
each
time 50 - 60 users get kicked off. heck! I do that accidently at least
once
a year!? Managment might not buy that argument but If the performance
gain
is significant then it's worth it. Your thoughts?
Thanks,
Greg
SBC SITES ONLY GOOGLE SEARCH: http://www.F1U.com
************************************************
For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
//www.freelists.org/list/thin
************************************************
Other related posts:
