On 07/10/2012 12:26 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
That's clear to me.
These "hardware" raid controllers are not very reliable because they are
indeed not real hardware raid controllers, but software based.
Maybe for desktop usage it's ok/ good enough?
precise what is "desktop" usage is.
Here at work we just use non raided disks for workstations which run linux.
The home directories are on nfs, so when a disk fails it's replaced very
fast by doing a basic install on a new disk or just replacing the disk by a
preinstalled disk laying on the shelf here.
i don't see a reason for doing mirroring for home use.
Me neither, just keep back-ups of important data on a different place/device
It is better to use the operating systems raid capability linke gmirror
instead.
always.
Of course real hardware raid controllers with cache and battery backed
are a different thing and very reliable.
if you have workload where battery backed cache will actually improve
things (heavy fsync usage) then yes. otherwise no.
i've seen many of them, older, newer, and with same disks i always got at
least same performance with FreeBSD software solution.
Not talking about RAID5 of which i am not interested at all - there is no
reason trading performance for available space nowadays with 2-3TB disks.
I have never tries the FreeBSD raid solution as we always have servers with
from past to now acc, amr and mfi controllers with raid1 and raid5 in the
past mostly used for databases and perl cgi based web applications.
Disclaimer: http://www.ose.nl/email
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
