Fwd: RAID
-- Forwarded message -- From: lordSauron [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Nov 8, 2005 8:59 PM Subject: Re: RAID To: John C. Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 11/8/05, John C. Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 08 November 2005 3:14 pm, lordSauron wrote: snip amd64 installer (which supported kernel ver. 2.6.x-11, the x being holes in my memory) it didn't work (or at least I couldn't make it work, but I'm still not that great at installing so it's totally possible I just majorly screwed up and did something stupid along the line...). I think it'd work with the newer kernels (= -12) b/c with the -11 my m-board integrated audio and LAN didn't work, but now they do... so I think that it's just that the -11 kernel didn't yet have I can't speak much to the RAID issues, but just FYI the x that you can't remember is probably the most important part of the kernel version number. The suffix -11 is the Debian package version, and is changed frequently as the packaging is adjusted. In all likelihood, a device that did not work So that's what that's all about... under package version -11 will still not work under version -12, but if you look at kernel version 2.6.8 vs 2.6.12, 2.6.13, or 2.6.14 there are a number of changes in the kernel modules and devices supported. I think I have the 2.6.12 kernel. -- === GCB v3.1 === GCS d-(+) s+:- a? C+() UL+++() P L++(+++) E- W+(+++) N++ w--- M++ PS-- PE Y+ PGP- t++(+++) 5? X? R !tv-- b++ DI+++ D-- G !e h(*) !r x--- === EGCB v3.1 === -- === GCB v3.1 === GCS d-(+) s+:- a? C+() UL+++() P L++(+++) E- W+(+++) N++ w--- M++ PS-- PE Y+ PGP- t++(+++) 5? X? R !tv-- b++ DI+++ D-- G !e h(*) !r x--- === EGCB v3.1 ===
Fwd: RAID
I'm about as absent minded as you can get. I really wish that they'd add a reply-to part to this list, b/c I almost never remember to send to the list, and not to the sender... I know it's supposed to cause major lag on the mail servers, but in my little case it'll probably far outweigh the lag created by my lack of presence of mind... -- Forwarded message -- From: lordSauron [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Nov 8, 2005 8:58 PM Subject: Re: RAID To: Lennart Sorensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 11/8/05, Lennart Sorensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 12:14:52PM -0800, lordSauron wrote: Hi, I was just doing some information gathering for a potential upgrade I want to perform. I have a ECS Elitegroup nForce 3-A motherboard, which has built-in RAID 0/1/0+1 support. I want to get a 80 Gb SATA150 drive, but if I can get RAID to work with linux, I'd love to pay more but get two 40 Gb SATA150 drives, and RAID 0 them together. *However,* when I tried this with a ATA 27 Gb drive and a IDE 14.7 Gb drive (a IBM Deskstar and a Segate brand drive respectively) and then tried it with the amd64 installer (which supported kernel ver. 2.6.x-11, the x being holes in my memory) it didn't work (or at least I couldn't make it work, but I'm still not that great at installing so it's totally possible I just majorly screwed up and did something stupid along the line...). I think it'd work with the newer kernels (= -12) b/c with the -11 my m-board integrated audio and LAN didn't work, but now they do... so I think that it's just that the -11 kernel didn't yet have the device drivers for these components, and now that these things work, the RAID should work too, right? I just wanted to see if anyone knew the status of this... Thanks for any info you can give me! Use software raid in linux. The installer can allow yo to set it up. I don't know... I think that the nVidia nForce 3's RAID is on the contoller level, so I think it should work, but I'm not sure. No desktop motherboard has hardware raid onboard. Many have fake raid however which is simply the bios pretending to be raid until the driver (usually proprietary) takes over doing raid. It is all software, and usually not as fast or efficient as what linux can do in software. Now why would you buy 40G drives when they cost (at least around here) the same as 80G drives. 2 x 40G would cost twice the price of a single 80G. Buying a pair of 160 or 200G drives would make much more sense. Also larger drives are denser and hence faster than smaller drives, so you may actually get less performance striping two smaller drives, and the reliability goes way down since you have two points of failure instead of one. Insane setup really. Yeah, that hit me rather suddenly in the car on the way home... However, I don't have the raw cash to buy anything over about 120Gb. -- === GCB v3.1 === GCS d-(+) s+:- a? C+() UL+++() P L++(+++) E- W+(+++) N++ w--- M++ PS-- PE Y+ PGP- t++(+++) 5? X? R !tv-- b++ DI+++ D-- G !e h(*) !r x--- === EGCB v3.1 === -- === GCB v3.1 === GCS d-(+) s+:- a? C+() UL+++() P L++(+++) E- W+(+++) N++ w--- M++ PS-- PE Y+ PGP- t++(+++) 5? X? R !tv-- b++ DI+++ D-- G !e h(*) !r x--- === EGCB v3.1 ===
Re: Fwd: RAID
I'm about as absent minded as you can get. I really wish that they'd add a reply-to part to this list, b/c I almost never remember to send to the list, and not to the sender... I know it's supposed to cause major lag on the mail servers, but in my little case it'll probably far outweigh the lag created by my lack of presence of mind... 'reply to all' :P Thanks for any info you can give me! Use software raid in linux. The installer can allow yo to set it up. I don't know... I think that the nVidia nForce 3's RAID is on the contoller level, so I think it should work, but I'm not sure. i have nf4, and its just soft-raid. if i set it up in the bios, in linux it just sees two drives. with all other (scsi) raid ive used that is hardware - and ive used a lot - it will just show up as one rather large or rather fast drive. you can install, and then grub will just hang as it gets all confused. just turn off bios raid stuff all together and let linux do it. im running 2x36gb wd raptors (sata, 10k) and its as fast as ive seen short of 64bit scsi raid with uw320 15k discs. Now why would you buy 40G drives when they cost (at least around here) the same as 80G drives. 2 x 40G would cost twice the price of a single 80G. Buying a pair of 160 or 200G drives would make much more sense. Also larger drives are denser and hence faster than smaller drives, so you may actually get less performance striping two smaller drives, and the reliability goes way down since you have two points of failure instead of one. Insane setup really. likely a 40 gig at the same price as an 80 is faster, likely has 1024kb per meg and has more cache on it. that or youre being ripped. Yeah, that hit me rather suddenly in the car on the way home... However, I don't have the raw cash to buy anything over about 120Gb. Dean -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fwd: RAID
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 09:01:55PM -0800, lordSauron wrote: I'm about as absent minded as you can get. I really wish that they'd add a reply-to part to this list, b/c I almost never remember to send to the list, and not to the sender... I know it's supposed to cause major lag on the mail servers, but in my little case it'll probably far outweigh the lag created by my lack of presence of mind... I'm not aware of a lag problem - it's just a bad idea. Get a proper mail agent and you'll have no problem. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
