Thanks, I do stand corrected. Next time I spec out firewalls, I will keep your arguments in mind for sure, they do make a lot of sense.
Alec J.C. Roberts wrote: > On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:03:05 -0800, Alexander Lind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >>> RAID, kiddo. >>> It's more complex. It is something else that can go wrong. >>> And...it DOES go wrong. Either believe me now, or wish you believed me >>> later. Your call. I spent a lot of time profiting from people who >>> ignored my advice. :) >>> >>> >> Of course raid are more complex on a hardware level, but that doesn't >> exactly make it more complex for _me_, the user, does it? >> >> > > Alexander, > > Yes, it does. Not realizing the increased complexity and risks for the > user just means you drank the koolaid and actually believe the marketing > and advertising nonsense for hardware RAID products. If with *your* > experience you really believe that hardware and firmware never have > serious bugs or catastrophic failures, then you are statistically > overdue for a number of unpleasant surprises. > > Here is an interesting question for you which may help you grasp the > concept Nick is preaching; in the event of a nasty failure on a RAID > where you absolutely *must* be able to recover the valuable data, do you > stand a better chance of recovering the data from a hardware RAID > configuration or a software RAID configuration? > > Though contrary to the marketing koolaid, the answer is software RAID. > In a hardware RAID you are blindly trusting incompletely documented > hardware and undisclosed firmware. You will *NEVER* have access to the > firmware source code or the chip logic, so you never really know how it > works exactly. In a software RAID configuration (ccd/raidframe/etc), you > have the source code, know exactly how it works and the hardware is far > less complex as well as reasonably well documented in most cases. With > software RAID, at least you have a chance of mounting the raw disks and > piecing thing back together manually. The odds of recovery are always > better when things are simple and you actually know how they work. > > Mindlessly slapping a new disk into a hardware RAID after a disk failure > only works *some* of the time and only for *some* types of failures. If > you're not lucky enough to be in the *some* category, then you'll be > dusting off those outdated backup tapes and updating your resume. > Imagine telling your boss that there is no way to recover the data from > the trashed RAID disks because the vendor refuses to release required > hardware/firmware information. > > If you had kept things known and simple by using a software RAID, you > may have had a chance of recovering the companys' financial records. > > Hardware RAID is fun, fast and useful for some applications but you > should at least understand the additional complexity you're deploying, > the additional risks caused by the complexity and the additional costs > you will bear. When your only concern is reliability then your goal > should be to keep it as simple as feasible. Less complexity and fewer > unknowns not only means fewer things can go wrong but it also means a > greater chance of recovery. > > Still not convinced? Let's say a bug is committed to the -CURRENT source > tree in the driver for your hardware RAID card. Since reliability is so > critical to you, you must have a completely identical hardware setup for > constantly testing your hardware RAID controller with -CURRENT to > prevent that bug from getting into a -RELEASE? Or maybe you went out and > spent the few hundred bucks for an additional RAID controller like the > one you use so you could donate it to one of the developers in the > project who actually work on the driver? > > Nope, statistically you're probably a typical user who waits until > release to see if your RAID volumes are hosed by an undiscovered bug. > Luckily, with OpenBSD you have extremely dedicated expert developers > covering up for your short-sightedness. > > The path of "Simple, Known and Tested" should be looking really good to > you about now for reliability but if not, then there is really no point > in arguing it any further. Not everyone can provoke Nick into yet > another world class RAID RANT, but those who do darn well ought to learn > something before he pulls out the nail gun again to show you what a > worst case disk failure is really like. (no joke, search the archives). > > /JCR > > > -- > Free, Open Source CAD, CAM and EDA Tools > http://www.DesignTools.org
