On Thursday 27 October 2005 11:51, Brian C. Huffman wrote: > On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 11:42 -0400, Bryan Halter wrote: > > Well to start with for RAID you need to have disks that are all the same > > size (preferably the same model). I believe Linux supports growing > > software RAID volumes and I'm sure someone will correct me if it > > doesn't. Personally I'd go out and buy a 4 device SATA-RAID controller > > and 4 250GB drives that will give you 750GB of storage and fewer > > headaches since the RAID array will be seen as any other scsi disk and > > the card will do the thinking so you won't take a CPU hit for having > > RAID. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mythtv-users mailing list > > mythtv-users@mythtv.org > > http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users > > My recommendation as well - and I did it. In fact, I built a nice > little "Media NFS Server" using an old Pentium 3 that I had lying around > (free), an Adaptec AAR-2400A 4-channel ATA/100 RAID Card for $109 > (shipped) off of Ebay, and 4 - 200GB Maxtor IDE drives at $70 each > (shipped) (Fry's Outpost). As it turns out, I already had 2 - 200GB > drives in my frontend, so I really only spent a total of $249. :-) > > You could go SATA, but IDE is gonna be cheaper, and I haven't had any > problems with performance yet. > > -b
you won't notice a difference between a SATA raid and an IDE RAID, the drives are the same speed and for RAID applications you've got the chipset doing what the normal SATA chipset does over a normal ATA chipset. Same with SCSI, though if you've got a SCSI raid doing striping and parity on say a 10drive array, then yea, you'd definitley see an improvement going to SCSI over SATA. anyone know what the hit would be for a RAID 5 card that uses the CPU to do parity on an Athlon64? Steve _______________________________________________ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users