Michael A. Peters wrote:
>
>> I'd recommend looking at backuppc instead of amanda if you mostly want
>> on-line storage. Its storage scheme will hold a much longer history in
>> the same amount of space and it has a handy web interface for browsing
>> and restores.
>
> I'd rather have somethi
>> See my reply to nate. If you are using boards with 12GB of cache,
>> software raid is not even on the radar.
>>
>
> True, but I feel an important point is being missed here.
>
> In order to avoid a lot of the random I/O file systems use page cache
> to combine I/O operations and transact
On Jun 2, 2009, at 9:53 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
> John R Pierce wrote:
>> Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
>>
I've read a lot of different reports that suggest at this point
in time,
kernel software raid is in most cases better than controller raid.
>>> Let
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> I'd recommend looking at backuppc instead of amanda if you mostly want
> on-line storage. Its storage scheme will hold a much longer history in
> the same amount of space and it has a handy web interface for browsing
> and restores.
I'd rather have something that has
Michael A. Peters wrote:
>
> I guess from the discussion that hardware raid is definitely still the
> way to go for servers, where the guy at the colo can simply swap out a
> dead drive if need be w/o any serious downtime etc.
On the flip side, you generally have to install some vendor-specific
Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 06/01/2009 07:52 PM, Michael A. Peters wrote:
>> I've read a lot of different reports that suggest at this point in time,
>> kernel software raid is in most cases better than controller raid.
>
> There are certainly a lot of people who feel that way. It depends on
> wh
John R Pierce wrote:
> Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
>
>>> I've read a lot of different reports that suggest at this point in time,
>>> kernel software raid is in most cases better than controller raid.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Let me define 'most cases' for you. Linux software raid c
nate wrote:
> Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
>
>> Complete bollocks. The bottleneck is not the drives themselves as
>> whether it is SATA/PATA disk drive performance has not changed much
>> which is why 15k RPM disks are still king. The bottleneck is the bus be
>> it PCI-X or PCIe 16x/8x/4x
Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
> Complete bollocks. The bottleneck is not the drives themselves as
> whether it is SATA/PATA disk drive performance has not changed much
> which is why 15k RPM disks are still king. The bottleneck is the bus be
> it PCI-X or PCIe 16x/8x/4x or at least the latenci
Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
>> I've read a lot of different reports that suggest at this point in time,
>> kernel software raid is in most cases better than controller raid.
>>
>>
> Let me define 'most cases' for you. Linux software raid can perform
> better or the same if you are
> I've read a lot of different reports that suggest at this point in time,
> kernel software raid is in most cases better than controller raid.
>
Let me define 'most cases' for you. Linux software raid can perform
better or the same if you are using raid0/raid1/raid1+0 arrays. If you
are usi
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 06/01/2009 07:52 PM, Michael A. Peters wrote:
>>
>> I've read a lot of different reports that suggest at this point in time,
>> kernel software raid is in most cases better than controller raid.
>
> There are certainly a lot of people who
On 06/01/2009 07:52 PM, Michael A. Peters wrote:
>
> I've read a lot of different reports that suggest at this point in time,
> kernel software raid is in most cases better than controller raid.
There are certainly a lot of people who feel that way. It depends on
what your priorities are. Hardw
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> -=- starting as new thread as it is off topic from controller thread -=-
>
> Ross Walker wrote:
>
> >
> > The real key is the controller though. Get one that can do hardware
> > RAID1/10, 5/50, 6/60, if it can do both SATA and SAS even
On Jun 1, 2009, at 9:52 PM, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> I've read a lot of different reports that suggest at this point in
> time,
> kernel software raid is in most cases better than controller raid.
I manage systems with both.
I like hardware RAID controllers. Yes, they do cost money up fron
Michael A. Peters wrote:
> I'd be very interested in hearing opinions on this subject.
I mainly like hardware raid (good hardware raid not hybrid
software/hardware raid) because of the simplicity, the system
can easily boot from it, in many cases drives are hot swappable
and you don't have to to
-=- starting as new thread as it is off topic from controller thread -=-
Ross Walker wrote:
>
> The real key is the controller though. Get one that can do hardware
> RAID1/10, 5/50, 6/60, if it can do both SATA and SAS even better and
> get a battery backed write-back cache, the bigger the be
17 matches
Mail list logo
