[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:51:50 +0100
> From: gordon+dcglug@xxxxxxxxxx
> To: list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [LUG] Mounting Partitions
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Austin Gossmeyer wrote:
> > I have 3x17431M and 2x34857M drives on a Ubuntu 9.04 system. I am
> > wondering the best way to split them up. At the moment Ubuntu is
> > installed on one of the 17431M drives and I was thinking of using one
> > drive for squid logs and another for dansguardian logs. I have formatted
> > the other drives but I am not sure how to get them in use. What space
> > should I give the log files? Thanks in advance.
> In the olden days we'd look to optimise spindles and data paths, and
> sometimes even locations on disks for partitions - these days, it seems
> that not many people do this. I consider it a dying art myself, but I'm of
> the old way of doing things ...
> So if you want performance, you need to look at the ways the drives are
> connected. You don't say what they are - SCSI, SATA, IDE, or ...
They are scsi drives.
> If they're IDE, then it's best to avoid 2 drives on the same bit of ribbon
> cable. Modern controllers will give you a performance gain over older ones
> when accessing both drives concurrently, but I have seen one faulty IDE
> drive block access to a 2nd on the same ribbon cable. (Drive was fine,
> controller board smoked)
> The same is true of SCSI, but to a lesser extent due to the way the bus is
> designed, and thet're generally better engineered.
> SATA is less prone to this as you only have one drive per cable (but I've
> seen a mobo controller fail, rendering 2 drives unusable )-:
> I doubt the drives are SATA due to their small size though (18G and 35GB)
> I'm suspecting they're older SCSI drives as they were popular sizes.
> So if they're all on one chain, then look to separate tasks on different
> spindles. You'll only get a real advantage if you're using fast SCSI
They are on one chain attached to a raid card.
> So 5 drives - OS on one drive, squid cache on another, suqid logs on
> another and DG logs on a 4th, leaving the 5th free...
> However you might want to consider RAID or mirroring. If you want speed,
> then combine the 2 x 35GB drives via RAID-0, giving you one big 70GB drive
> at near double the speed of a single drive. However if one drive fails,
> you lose the lot. Maybe not that big a disaster for a squid cache - just
> remove the bad drive, re-format the remaining good drive, and start
> again... but if you want redundancy, then use RAID-1 which will withstand
> a single drive failure - squid data on the RAID drive, OS on one, logs on
> the other 2.
> Too many choices though - and without knowing your aims, it's hard to know
> what to suggest.
> You also don't say what the Internet b/w is... If it's ADSL or cable, (or
> SWGFL) then RAID-0 might be overkill as you'll still be network b/w
> bound... If Janet speeds then you might find the server is the bottleneck!
SWGFl is our isp.
> Another thing to consider though - power consumption - who's paying the
> electric bill for those 5 (old) spinning devices which will run 24x7...
> You may well be better off with 2 new "green" drives in the long-run. I
> know I was when I had multiple old SCSI spinny things running at home..
> Anyway - mounting them - just create top-level directories like
Thank you that gave me enough information to google to get started.
> and mount the drives there and adjust fstab to mount them at boot time.
> You will need to fiddle with the squid and DG configuration files to place
> the data/logs there though.
> Good luck!
> The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
> FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html
Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage. Get it on your BlackBerry or iPhone.
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html