Well, its crowded at least :)
Seriously, I know and respect the redhat people (ought to, used to work
there). They would not have gone anywhere near the raid code if it was
gonna kill reliability in 6.1.
For more direct results, I've got a raid 1 on my web server, a raid 0
in test (stupid jedi mind trick - what happens with a 2gig and 200mb
stripe set), and I hope to try raid 5 real soon now.
My suggestion is to do what I do for production machines - have an extra
computer, and make your own judgements about whether its stable. I've
found that I have situations where do to local usage patterns, we've never
been bit by certain bugs in some software, and we've been nailed to the
floor by some others that were "obscure".
--
Hunter Matthews Unix / Network Administrator
Office: BioSci 222/244 BioScience
Darth root, Dark Lord of the Unix.
On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Stephen Millard wrote:
> >From the accounts I have observed, it appears questionable that Raid
> (software) for Linux is ready for serious use. Indeed, the product
> support tech at RedHat inferred this also. I am about to install a Linux
> server to a client, and the question I have is: Will the installation of
> Raid be a reliability enhancement or a degradation? In other words will
> the current software be a good deal more reliable than the disks
> themselves?
>
> I am not criticizing the Raid effort. I applaud it. But before it can be
> reliable it must go through this maturing stage. I just wonder if
> jumping on the Raid train at this point would be wise.
>
> Steve
> --
> ----------------------------
> - Stephen Millard -
> - Websmith Enterprises Inc.-
> - Harrisburg, Pa. -
> ----------------------------
>
