 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsPC HardwareCPUMotherboardsVideo CardsStorageNetworkingPeripheralsBrand Name Systems Related Topics Video GamesWindowsMS Server ProductsMS OfficeMore Topics ... |
Hardware Forum / Storage / General Topics / August 2008Sharing RAID0 between LAMP servers?
Hello Our LAMP application is showing I/O latency. I was wondering if we could move to multiple Apache servers, each connected through their own disk controller to a single, shared RAID0 bay? Our hoster recommends that we use a NAS, but I'm concerned about network + NFS latency. Thank you for any tip. > Hello > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Thank you for any tip. Where's the latency being seen? Between the user and the application or from the application to the storage? If you have latency from the application (mysql/apache) to the storage then higher performance storage is needed - more disks and/or more cache - regardless of the number of servers. If you need several servers accessing the same dataset and it's largely reads, NFS is the easiest way. If you want to directly connect several servers to the same storage you'll need a storage controller which allows multiple devices to access the storage and you'll need to install a cluster filesystem. That's a load of complexity that you could probably do without. If you have a dedicated network, then the latency of NFS & the network is going to be insignificant compared to the latency of a disk access. Pete >Where's the latency being seen? Between the user and the application or >from the application to the storage? Thanks guys for the input. It was between the www servers and the MySQL + JPGs server. We asked the hoster to add a filer, and performance is much better now, with the filter being shared between two Apache servers If demande keeps rising, I guess we'll have to investigate MySQL clusters, so that the DB doesn't become the bottleneck again. > If you want to directly connect several servers to the same storage > you'll need a storage controller which allows multiple devices > to access the storage and you'll need to install a cluster filesystem. > That's a load of complexity that you could probably do without. Yes, that's what I suspected :-/ So I guess the standard solution to scaling databases is to add some kind of load balancer, and 2 or more DB servers behind it. >>Where's the latency being seen? Between the user and the application or >>from the application to the storage? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > scaling databases is to add some kind of load balancer, and 2 or more > DB servers behind it. It's really to tune things first, then as a last resort, start adding more hardware. More hardware and more layers is always harder to manage. As junior as mysql is, there's lots of stuff that can be tweaked. The apps using it should be examined as well if you are running into performance problems. >It's really to tune things first, then as a last resort, start adding more >hardware. More hardware and more layers is always harder to manage. I'll make sure MySQL + queries are configured as best as possible. Thanks. > Hello > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Thank you for any tip. You sound confused about all this. What is the problem you're experiencing, or how did you arrive at "showing I/O latency" as the bottlneck in this case? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.