Finished with Downtime on 7-31

[Nottheking]

Re: Downtime 7-31

Better a few hours' downtime than enduring those 40-second savetimes and increasingly frequent server lags. Gawd, those were horrible.

Thanks for the heads up, Demise staff!

Oh, by the way, you might want to update the main page (www.uodemise.com) for even quicker access to news and events happening on the server. The last update there was March 31!

Indeed, it was much better to take care of a permanent solution, rather than simply running with what was there; if something wasn't done, within a few days we might've seen 1-minute-plus saves, and at every hour or so, and decreased overall performance... Ugh.

Yay! We Have Life Again! Muahahahah!

However, "a life" is still completely out of reach.

 

[Maglor Taralom]

Re: Finished with Downtime on 7-31

HOORAH! I was starting to get withdrawal symptoms....

*shaking subsides*

 

[atesterman]

Re: Finished with Downtime on 7-31

ASayre, dude you ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Red Squirrel]

Re: Finished with Downtime on 7-31

Wow this was seamless to me.... Guess thats what happends when you work full time. Just Thank god it was not raid 0. LOL

 

[Lord Mars]

Re: Finished with Downtime on 7-31

i think the server is running RAID 0 now, 4 drives = 2 mirror to another 2

 

[Red Squirrel]

Re: Finished with Downtime on 7-31

That would be 0+1 or 1+0 but those are safe, you can loose 1 drive, maybe 2 depending on which 2 drives go. Performance is actually better then raid 5 too. Raid 5 is aperently the worse for performance, but best for capacity+redundancy.

 

[Nottheking]

Re: Finished with Downtime on 7-31

i think the server is running RAID 0 now, 4 drives = 2 mirror to another 2

"Mirroring" is RAID 1. RAID 0 is "striping" where data is split across the drives; unlike a JBOD (Just a Bunch of Disks) array, striping offers performance benefits by alternating which drive it places data on after every sector.

With 4 drives, it's likely, as Red Squirell said, a combination of the two, either 1+0, or 0+1. I can never remember which is which order, though... This sort of combination is generally considered the "ultimate" in reliability and performance, though, of course, it requires more disks than RAID 5.