Compressing Mail Transfer

[Andrew Tait]

Hi All,

I was wondering if anyone has come across a way to compress the SMTP
transfer of mail between two servers to reduce bandwidth usage.

The situation we have is a mail server that is dialled into out network, and
a mail server at our border connection. At the moment, the dial-up server is
sending mail directly out. I would like the dial-up server to send the mail
to our main mail server instead (as easy as pie to do!), but would like to
compress the mail transfer between the two, as the dial-up server has a
limited connection.

Thanks,

Andrew Tait
System Administrator
Country NetLink Pty, Ltd
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.cnl.com.au
30 Bank St Cobram, VIC 3644, Australia
Ph: +61 (03) 58 711 000
Fax: +61 (03) 58 711 874

"It's the smell! If there is such a thing." Agent Smith - The Matrix

(OT) a foxpro question

[Chad A. Adlawan]

hello all! this is a weird request, pls bear with me. has anybody here tried
using foxpro in their previous lives? can u configure it so that the server has
a daemon that listens and process requests just like mysqld? ... thanks in
advance. :-) ... sorry for being off topic, im a debian sysad tasked with
developing a system alongside an already working done in foxpro. TIA, Chad. \n
my, emailing frm a mobile fone sure is hard.

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com

Re: customizing debian apache

[Craig Sanders]

On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 12:49:14PM -0600, Cameron Moore wrote:
> Are you blind?  You quoted what's wrong.  The build scripts assume
> you are installing into /var/www, /usr/lib/cgi-bin, etc as defined in
> the Debian Layout.  I would like to be able to alter the layout in a
> single file, run `./debian/rules build`, and have the build process
> alter the post*, pre*, etc files to adhere to my customizations.

why?

these are ALL run-time configuration directives.

edit your apache config and forget about it.

> I am well aware that there are ten different ways to do this the "hard
> way".  I can build apache from the official apache source tarball, but
> I'd like to be able to install a customized deb package that's easy
> to maintain (ie. I don't want to have to go in and hack up the build
> scripts every time I upgrade).

you don't have to. debian packages don't overwrite configuration files
on upgrade unless you tell them to.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
 -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch

Re: tape drives

[Craig Sanders]

On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 03:56:22PM -0700, David Bishop wrote:
> As for the second part of my question, any recommendations on *what* my 
> "choice of backup software" should be?  Amanda just seems like overkill for a 
> single computer, and tar is a little, um, primitive :-)  

amanda is actually very easy to install and configure.  it scales well
from one system to dozens of systems.

it's certainly a LOT easier than trying to create your own backup system
using tar (or cpio or afio) and a bunch of shell scripts.

highly recommended!

craig

-- 
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
 -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch

Re: tape drives

[David Bishop]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


Thank you, I figured out what the problem was.  I have three scsi controllers 
in the machine, and had only loaded the driver for the first two.  It is now 
recognizing the drive just fine.

As for the second part of my question, any recommendations on *what* my 
"choice of backup software" should be?  Amanda just seems like overkill for a 
single computer, and tar is a little, um, primitive :-)  Should I just shut 
the hell up and learn the intricacies of tar, or is there a better/more 
intuitive interface for backing up?

Thanks for the the help so far

On Wednesday 07 November 2001 03:48 pm, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
> You probably want to use the SCSI Tape driver for that.  As I understand,
> pretty much all SCSI tape drives have a similar set of commands and
> features.  Your Compaq EOD003 probably operates similarly to my HP 88980,
> which is an ancient 9-track drive :-)
>
> The mt(1) program can be used to position the tape, erase tapes, etc.  The
> st driver will allow the st library to work with programs like mt or your
> choice of backup software.
>
> -rw-r--r--1 root root33992 Jun  2 19:15
> /lib/modules/2.4.5/kernel/drivers/scsi/st.o
>
> - jsw
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David Bishop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 5:41 PM
> To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
> Subject: tape drives
>
>
> I just installed a scsi tape drive (Compaq EOD003) and was wondering how I
> can tell whether or not it is recognized.  I have never used tape drives
> before (at least, that weren't already setup) and I don't know even the
> first
> thing about them.  Searching for scsi tape drive linux via google didn't
> turn
> up much of any help, the howto seems to be about 3 years old.
>
> Once I figure out whether or not it is working, are there recommendations
> as to what I should use for backup software?  It is a standalone machine,
> about 4 gig used, probably going to do once-weekly-full + daily incremental
> (or something along those lines).
>
> Thanks for any tips/hints/pointers.

- -- 
D.A.Bishop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE76bwWEHLN/FXAbC0RAjCEAJ9tIvPAxeKvLP+Nr7Ej3bmEUuS5QgCgw+u+
hYgRtCiI6oFNHWYUBFc+HKA=
=jn0b
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

RE: tape drives

[Jeff S Wheeler]

You probably want to use the SCSI Tape driver for that.  As I understand,
pretty much all SCSI tape drives have a similar set of commands and
features.  Your Compaq EOD003 probably operates similarly to my HP 88980,
which is an ancient 9-track drive :-)

The mt(1) program can be used to position the tape, erase tapes, etc.  The
st driver will allow the st library to work with programs like mt or your
choice of backup software.

-rw-r--r--1 root root33992 Jun  2 19:15
/lib/modules/2.4.5/kernel/drivers/scsi/st.o

- jsw


-Original Message-
From: David Bishop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 5:41 PM
To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Subject: tape drives


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

I just installed a scsi tape drive (Compaq EOD003) and was wondering how I
can tell whether or not it is recognized.  I have never used tape drives
before (at least, that weren't already setup) and I don't know even the
first
thing about them.  Searching for scsi tape drive linux via google didn't
turn
up much of any help, the howto seems to be about 3 years old.

Once I figure out whether or not it is working, are there recommendations as
to what I should use for backup software?  It is a standalone machine, about
4 gig used, probably going to do once-weekly-full + daily incremental (or
something along those lines).

Thanks for any tips/hints/pointers.

- --
D.A.Bishop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE76bh9EHLN/FXAbC0RAmrlAKDa1yfwzuSAbUqEy25eOy2fz3RSYQCg6Xnn
JWBqMngac2Oapzj1gEyKR7Q=
=yzlC
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

tape drives

[Felipe Alvarez Harnecker]

cat /proc/scsi/scsi 

or something..

-- 
__

Felipe Alvarez Harnecker.  QlSoftware.

Tels. 204.56.21 - 09.874.60.17
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://qlsoft.cl/
http://ql.cl/
__

tape drives

[David Bishop]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

I just installed a scsi tape drive (Compaq EOD003) and was wondering how I 
can tell whether or not it is recognized.  I have never used tape drives 
before (at least, that weren't already setup) and I don't know even the first 
thing about them.  Searching for scsi tape drive linux via google didn't turn 
up much of any help, the howto seems to be about 3 years old.

Once I figure out whether or not it is working, are there recommendations as 
to what I should use for backup software?  It is a standalone machine, about 
4 gig used, probably going to do once-weekly-full + daily incremental (or 
something along those lines).

Thanks for any tips/hints/pointers. 

- -- 
D.A.Bishop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE76bh9EHLN/FXAbC0RAmrlAKDa1yfwzuSAbUqEy25eOy2fz3RSYQCg6Xnn
JWBqMngac2Oapzj1gEyKR7Q=
=yzlC
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: customizing debian apache

[Cameron Moore]

* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2001.11.07 00:00]:
> 
> 
> > Look in the the debian dir of the src deb.  The rules, post*, pre*, and
> > apacheconfig files are all hardcoded to assuming the Debian Layout.
> 
> You haven't mentioned what's wrong, or requires customisation...

Are you blind?  You quoted what's wrong.  The build scripts assume you
are installing into /var/www, /usr/lib/cgi-bin, etc as defined in the
Debian Layout.  I would like to be able to alter the layout in a single
file, run `./debian/rules build`, and have the build process alter the
post*, pre*, etc files to adhere to my customizations.

I am well aware that there are ten different ways to do this the "hard
way".  I can build apache from the official apache source tarball, but
I'd like to be able to install a customized deb package that's easy to
maintain (ie. I don't want to have to go in and hack up the build
scripts every time I upgrade).
-- 
Cameron Moore

Re: [OT] Dreamweaver + CVS

[Nicolas Bouthors]

> Maybe something out of here could help you for dav and CVS?
> http://www.cvshome.org/docs/infodav.html

Yeah, I already found that, but this is not quite descriptive.
What I was looking for is someone that has already done it and could avoid
me some of the pitfalls during my tests...

Yours,
Nico

RadiusReport for MS Radius Logs

[Gene Grimm]

Is there a package available for converting Microsoft radius log files to a
format suitable for the free radiusreport analysis script?

Re: bind9

[daniel]

> Hello,
>
> I want to switch to bind9. I've seen in migration file bind9 is almost
> 100% compatible with 8.
>
> I'm trying it now on one of my servers supporting my local network.
> Look's like bind9 responds much slower then previous version.
>
> I found this in migration.gz: "If a firewall incorrectly drops IP
> fragments, it can cause resolution to slow down dramatically or fail."
> I use firewall based on 2.4 statefull inspection. Port 53 is open both
> for TCP and UDP. Fragments are not rejected.
>
> All "measures" I did using W98's IE and NN on my Debian box.
> Any clues how to speed it ip ?
> --
> Regards,
> Marek L. Kozak
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Same thing here, I use a DNS for my local LAN, bind9, its is not firewalled
but forwarding responses are a bit slower than I expected, sometimes when
browsing mozilla or netscape report "cant find domain" but when trying
again it works.

I also would like to know if other people with bind9 feel it is slower than
version 8.

Thanks

-daniel
http://www.debian-gnu.com

Re: customizing debian apache

[Jason Lim]

An alternative is the KISS way (keep it simple stupid) way...

Just download the apache source code from www.apache.org, compile suexec
from there, and cp it to the appropriate directory where Debian expects
it.

Works like a charm.

Sincerely,
Jason

- Original Message -
From: "eirik dentz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: customizing debian apache


> I actually did this a while back because I wasn't happy with the debian
> default suexec directory either. I don't remember exactly what I did but
> I remember that I started by downloading all the packages necessary to
> build .debs and then I grabbed the apache source files, currently that
> would be:
> apache_1.3.22-2.dsc
> apache_1.3.22.orig.tar.gz
> apache_1.3.22-2.diff.gz
>
> And then I grabbed all the packages listed in the .dsc file.  opened up
> the .diff file in a text editor and searched for "suexec" made my
> changes and then followed the instructions about building a .deb here:
>
> 
>
> Once I figured it out it didn't take all that long and I had suexec
> hardwired to a directory of my choice.  Of course the problem with this
> was that upgrading apache was no longer as simple as issuing apt-get
> update.  So after maintaining my own layout for a few upgrades, I
> scrapped it and went with the Debian default because the ease of apt-get
> update is really one of the things that makes Debian stand above all the
> other Linux distros.  Of course I didn't really have any issues with it
> other than the suexec directory.
>
> HTH
>
> eirik
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2001, at 12:18 AM, Cameron Moore wrote:
>
> > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2001.11.06 22:50]:
> >> 
> >>
> >>> Has anyone managed to customize (as in "use your own Layout on") an
> >>> apache build from .deb source?  I can't stand the debian Layout and
> >>> want
> >>> to customize it (or even use an existing layout that comes with
> >>> apache).
> >>> The problem is that all of the build scripts and whatnot assume you
> >>> use
> >>> the Debian layout.
> >>
> >> Define "layout"?
> >
> > See config.layout:
> >  #   Debian GNU policy conforming path layout.
> >  
> >  prefix:/usr
> >  exec_prefix:   $prefix
> >  bindir:$exec_prefix/bin
> >  sbindir:   $prefix/lib+
> >  libexecdir:$exec_prefix/libexec
> >  mandir:$prefix/share/man
> >  sysconfdir:/etc+
> >  datadir:   $prefix/lib
> >  iconsdir:  $prefix/share/apache/icons
> >  htdocsdir: $datadir/htdocs
> >  cgidir:$datadir/cgi-bin
> >  includedir:$prefix/include+
> >  localstatedir: /var
> >  runtimedir:$localstatedir/run
> >  logfiledir:$localstatedir/log+
> >  proxycachedir: $localstatedir/cache+
> >  
> >
> >> If it's just a matter of "where served files are on the filesystem"
> >> you can
> >> do that very easily post-install.
> >
> > Possibly, but that's not what I want to do.  If you want suEXEC, you
> > have to know the paths at compile-time.  It would be *much* easier to
be
> > able to define an alternative layout and have the deb package build
> > properly.
> >
> >> I'm surprised you'd have any issues with the apache packages - they
> >> are one
> >> of the most well put together and administrator-friendly sets of
> >> packages
> >> I've ever seen.
> >>
> >> Please point out specific issues.
> >>
> >> - Jeff
> >
> > Look in the the debian dir of the src deb.  The rules, post*, pre*,
and
> > apacheconfig files are all hardcoded to assuming the Debian Layout.
> > That's all fine and good, but it restricts customization.  I'm not
sure
> > how foobarred everything would get if a package that depends on apache
> > being in a certain spot, either.  Guess I need to contact the
> > maintainer.  :-)
> >
> > I mainly want to know if anyone has done this before.  If not, I'll
dig
> > through it myself and see what happens.  ;-)  Thanks
> > --
> > Cameron Moore
> >
> >
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> http://www.zentek-international.com
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

bind9

[Marek L. Kozak]

Hello,

I want to switch to bind9. I've seen in migration file bind9 is almost
100% compatible with 8.

I'm trying it now on one of my servers supporting my local network.
Look's like bind9 responds much slower then previous version.

I found this in migration.gz: "If a firewall incorrectly drops IP
fragments, it can cause resolution to slow down dramatically or fail."
I use firewall based on 2.4 statefull inspection. Port 53 is open both
for TCP and UDP. Fragments are not rejected.

All "measures" I did using W98's IE and NN on my Debian box.
Any clues how to speed it ip ?
-- 
Regards,
Marek L. Kozak

Re: customizing debian apache

[eirik dentz]

I actually did this a while back because I wasn't happy with the debian 
default suexec directory either. I don't remember exactly what I did but 
I remember that I started by downloading all the packages necessary to 
build .debs and then I grabbed the apache source files, currently that 
would be:
apache_1.3.22-2.dsc
apache_1.3.22.orig.tar.gz
apache_1.3.22-2.diff.gz

And then I grabbed all the packages listed in the .dsc file.  opened up 
the .diff file in a text editor and searched for "suexec" made my 
changes and then followed the instructions about building a .deb here:


Once I figured it out it didn't take all that long and I had suexec 
hardwired to a directory of my choice.  Of course the problem with this 
was that upgrading apache was no longer as simple as issuing apt-get 
update.  So after maintaining my own layout for a few upgrades, I 
scrapped it and went with the Debian default because the ease of apt-get 
update is really one of the things that makes Debian stand above all the 
other Linux distros.  Of course I didn't really have any issues with it 
other than the suexec directory.

HTH
eirik
On Wednesday, November 7, 2001, at 12:18 AM, Cameron Moore wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2001.11.06 22:50]:

Has anyone managed to customize (as in "use your own Layout on") an
apache build from .deb source?  I can't stand the debian Layout and 
want
to customize it (or even use an existing layout that comes with 
apache).
The problem is that all of the build scripts and whatnot assume you 
use
the Debian layout.
Define "layout"?
See config.layout:
 #   Debian GNU policy conforming path layout.
 
 prefix:/usr
 exec_prefix:   $prefix
 bindir:$exec_prefix/bin
 sbindir:   $prefix/lib+
 libexecdir:$exec_prefix/libexec
 mandir:$prefix/share/man
 sysconfdir:/etc+
 datadir:   $prefix/lib
 iconsdir:  $prefix/share/apache/icons
 htdocsdir: $datadir/htdocs
 cgidir:$datadir/cgi-bin
 includedir:$prefix/include+
 localstatedir: /var
 runtimedir:$localstatedir/run
 logfiledir:$localstatedir/log+
 proxycachedir: $localstatedir/cache+
 
If it's just a matter of "where served files are on the filesystem" 
you can
do that very easily post-install.
Possibly, but that's not what I want to do.  If you want suEXEC, you
have to know the paths at compile-time.  It would be *much* easier to be
able to define an alternative layout and have the deb package build
properly.
I'm surprised you'd have any issues with the apache packages - they 
are one
of the most well put together and administrator-friendly sets of 
packages
I've ever seen.

Please point out specific issues.
- Jeff
Look in the the debian dir of the src deb.  The rules, post*, pre*, and
apacheconfig files are all hardcoded to assuming the Debian Layout.
That's all fine and good, but it restricts customization.  I'm not sure
how foobarred everything would get if a package that depends on apache
being in a certain spot, either.  Guess I need to contact the
maintainer.  :-)
I mainly want to know if anyone has done this before.  If not, I'll dig
through it myself and see what happens.  ;-)  Thanks
--
Cameron Moore
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RAID & Hard disk performance

[Jason Lim]

My experience with the new Maxtor drives is very positive. They perform
well and seem very reliable. Seagate drives however seem to be very
sensitive to knocks and bumps.

However, I must agree with you on the raid5 solution... for large raid
setups, the only practical solution is SCSI. As for cooling... those
>1rpm drives sure do run hot, so cooling is of utmost importance.



- Original Message -
From: "Roger Abrahamsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Cc: 
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: RAID & Hard disk performance


>
> Well, my experience instead is that scsi is rock solid compared to ide
> as long as you choose drives with same rotational speed etc. If you get
> those high rpm drives you have to be very careful with cooling. I try
> always to get 7200rpm drives and also stay away from certain brands, and
> then I havent seen one failure this year. Biggest problem I see with ide
> is the way drives can behave so differently and that you need all your
> pci slots to run a decent raid5 system, if not going for one of the very
> rare 5+ channel hardware raid controllers. Which are just as expensive
> as scsi controllers and have really no good linux support that I have
> found. If you want anything above 6-7 disks in a raid system you really
> dont have any alternative than scsi, no matter if you want to run
> software or hardware raid.
>
> For workstations though I would go with IDE, not many people load their
> computers to the degree they would note the difference.
>
> So for drive failings, I would say that they much more correlate to
> certain drive models and/or manufacturers than ide/scsi. Personally I
> try and stay as far away as possible from Maxtor and Seagate, but thats
> me. (I used to work way back as a pc tech, and I dont think I have ever
> seen so many dead on arrival drives as from seagate, maxtors usually
> worked at first and then started dying one by one)
>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.zentek-international.com
>

Re: Journaling FS for Production Systems

[Jeff Waugh]

> Are there many xfs users our there?  Is the development active? 
> If not is it because the xfs is stable, or has the xfs initiative
> lost momentum? 

My home machine:

:r! mount | grep hd

/dev/hda2 on / type xfs (rw,noatime)
/dev/hdc2 on /var type xfs (rw,noatime)
/dev/hdc3 on /home/music type xfs (rw,noatime)

Remember that XFS has had a long time to mature as part of IRIX. Only the
port to Linux could be seen as unstable, the filesystem itself is long
proven.

XFS lost a bit of momentum as Linuxcare pulled out of the porting efforts,
but I still use the SGI CVS kernels, which are regularly updated.

XFS is really good stuff, has good tools (reiser does not), and has a long
track record of stability. Add POSIX ACLs and the other advanced features,
and you have a kickarse filesystem (particularly good for a reliable SAMBA
machine, as it happens).

- Jeff

-- 
   "Can we have a special TELSABUG category, and everything gets dropped
 to fix them first?" - Telsa Gwynne 

Re: RAID & Hard disk performance

[Roger Abrahamsson]

Well, my experience instead is that scsi is rock solid compared to ide 
as long as you choose drives with same rotational speed etc. If you get 
those high rpm drives you have to be very careful with cooling. I try 
always to get 7200rpm drives and also stay away from certain brands, and 
then I havent seen one failure this year. Biggest problem I see with ide
is the way drives can behave so differently and that you need all your 
pci slots to run a decent raid5 system, if not going for one of the very 
rare 5+ channel hardware raid controllers. Which are just as expensive 
as scsi controllers and have really no good linux support that I have 
found. If you want anything above 6-7 disks in a raid system you really 
dont have any alternative than scsi, no matter if you want to run 
software or hardware raid.

For workstations though I would go with IDE, not many people load their 
computers to the degree they would note the difference.

So for drive failings, I would say that they much more correlate to 
certain drive models and/or manufacturers than ide/scsi. Personally I 
try and stay as far away as possible from Maxtor and Seagate, but thats 
me. (I used to work way back as a pc tech, and I dont think I have ever 
seen so many dead on arrival drives as from seagate, maxtors usually 
worked at first and then started dying one by one)

Re: Journaling FS for Production Systems

[I. Forbes]

Hello Paul 

On 6 Nov 2001, at 15:19, Paul Fleischer wrote:

> I would either go with ext3 (which even is ext2 compatible AFAIK) or
> XFS. They really seem to be the most stable. Reiser is not bad, but I
> have had some terrible experiences with it - however, I do still use it,
> it is nice, but IMHO not suited for production systems yet (allthough I
> beleive that many people do actually use it in production).

This comment seems to be typical of the responses I have had so 
far.  Based on this feedback, I think, we will stick to ext2 on the 
customer boxes for the moment and probably also kernel 2.2, but 
we will start migrating onto woody.

However I will setup a journaling Maildir box in our office and see 
how it goes.  (Production yes, but still under close supervision).

But I have two followup questions:

-   Does ext3 have any performance bennefit over ext2 when handling
large Maildir directories?

-   It seems, that at this point in time,  xfs is more stable than
reiserfs.  However I am not sure if that is because fewer people
have tried it, and hence fewer people have experienced problems. 
Are there many xfs users our there?  Is the development active? 
If not is it because the xfs is stable, or has the xfs initiative
lost momentum? 


Thanks

Ian

-
Ian Forbes ZSD
http://www.zsd.co.za
Office: +27 +21 683-1388  Fax: +27 +21 64-1106
Snail Mail: P.O. Box 46827, Glosderry, 7702, South Africa
-

Re: RAID & Hard disk performance

[Russell Coker]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 20:46, Jesse Molina wrote:
> That is kind of funny, in my experience I have found that SCSI drives have
> a much higher death rate than IDE drives, by far.

I had a similar experience years ago.  I was working for a company where the 
owner was greatly impressed by SCSI.  I had to install a number of 
workstations with SCSI hard drives, they were typical Taiwanese-clone type 
PCs with SCSI hard drives installed.  SCSI hard drives typically have higher 
rotational speeds (and therefore more heat output) than the IDE drives that 
the cases are designed for.  So the drives overheated and failed.  After that 
IDE drives were purchased and everything was fine.

Maybe your experience was similarly related to heat, maybe it was something 
different.

-- 
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/   Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page