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,
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 ha
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 t
God.. this is turning into a war... I think this will be my last post on
the subject
When running RAID MTBF is not such a big deal... Unless you have a several
racks of servers in 2U cases... 40-50 servers.. Would you rather drop 1
drive every month or 1 drive every year?? In a single machine
Original Message-
> From: Dave Watkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 11:27 PM
> To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: RAID & Hard disk performance
>
>
> Not to start a holy war, but there are real reasons to use SCSI.
>
> The bi
bject: Re: RAID & Hard disk performance
>
>
> Not to start a holy war, but there are real reasons to use SCSI.
>
> The big ones are
>
> Much larger MTBF, faster access times due to higher spindle
> speeds, better
> bus management (eg 2 drives can perform tasks at
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 07:26, Dave Watkins wrote:
> Not to start a holy war, but there are real reasons to use SCSI.
>
> The big ones are
>
> Much larger MTBF,
Mean Time Between Failures is not such a big deal when you run RAID. As long
as you don't have two drives fail at the same time. Cheaper ID
Not to start a holy war, but there are real reasons to use SCSI.
The big ones are
Much larger MTBF, faster access times due to higher spindle speeds, better
bus management (eg 2 drives can perform tasks at once unlike IDE), Hot
Swapable (This is HUGE) and more cache on the drive.
I'll stop now b
> There's a number of guides that tell you about hdparm and what DMA is, but if
> you already know that stuff then there's little good documentation.
"Oh bum." :)
> Then on the rare occasions that I do meet people who know this stuff
> reasonably well they seem to spend all their time trying
> There's a number of guides that tell you about hdparm and what DMA is, but if
> you already know that stuff then there's little good documentation.
"Oh bum." :)
> Then on the rare occasions that I do meet people who know this stuff
> reasonably well they seem to spend all their time trying
On Sat, 3 Nov 2001 14:33, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > RAID-5 is another issue though. But then you have to consider that Linux
> > software RAID kills the performance of most hardware RAID controllers.
> > Run an Athlon 800 with two IDE drives in RAID-1 and expect 2-4 times the
> > performance for
On Sat, 3 Nov 2001 14:33, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > RAID-5 is another issue though. But then you have to consider that Linux
> > software RAID kills the performance of most hardware RAID controllers.
> > Run an Athlon 800 with two IDE drives in RAID-1 and expect 2-4 times the
> > performance fo
12 matches
Mail list logo
