On Nov 13, 2006, at 4:27 PM, Michael Halcrow wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 05:15:38PM -0700, Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
On 11/13/06, Kenneth Burgener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there a benefit of putting a software raid array on separate
channels?
From The Linux Software-RAID HOWTO:
It is very important, that you only use one IDE disk per IDE bus.
That's why I have three chipsets to service 6 disks in my RAID. Don't
put the OS disk and a RAID disk on the same channel. And don't try to
use two SIL0680 chips in the same box (the Linux driver probably can't
handle two cards); get a SIL0680 and a High Point or a Promise. Or,
better yet, get a 4-channel IDE card.
Keep in mind that trying to manage 6+ ribbon cables in any box can be
a pain in the neck. The IDE connections seem to be a bit flimsy in my
box too, leading to phantom drive failures (OS-reported failures that
aren't really drive failures; some cable just needed to be
reseated). The next time I build a software RAID, I am definitely
going all SATA.
In my experience (albeit focused purely on server hardware) there are
so many downsides to doing IDE RAID that it doesn't even make sense
to use it. I suppose if you're trying to find the absolute cheapest
solution then it's viable, but then you'd be forced to ask yourself;
"How much do I value this data?" and "Why not just use software RAID
and/or rsync-type backups?". Chances are, unless it's something
you've purchased you don't really require RAID at all, and if you do,
then the cost of a really good SATA controller (w/battery backup!!)
shouldn't be an issue. I prefer the 3ware (AMCC now) 95xx series of
cards.
-Blake
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
