Hi,
> Well, unfortunately we're using IDE drives, each connected to an IDE/SCSI
> adapter, which has an ide interface on one side and a scsi-2 interface on
> the other. As we're on something of a budget, this is what we have to work
> with if we're going for storage volume.
If you use the same t
At 17:25 Uhr -0700 05.07.2000, Ben wrote:
>> So I can't get your point.
>Well, unfortunately we're using IDE drives, each connected to an IDE/SCSI
>adapter
Okay, this wasn't clear. Sorry.
>> Simply test by copying something onto it, sync, work otherwise so the
>> kernel buffers get flushed and
> If you care for reability, you should probably end up in using some sort
> of hardware array instead. For many persons linux raid works reliable and
> very fine. Also does LVD-SCSI in it's U2W incarnation which is also way
> faster than simple FAST-SCSI-WIDE (what in fact is the most you can get
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Ben wrote:
> The drives are all connected on the same SCSI-2 bus (we care about
> quantity and reliability, not speed), which is obviously not a
> performance deamon but should work just fine.
If you care for reability, you should probably end up in using some sort
of hardwar
We just made ourselves a raid5 software raid out of 7 60GB drives, using
the 2.2.11 kernel, appropriate patches, and the raid 0.90 tools. The
drives are all connected on the same SCSI-2 bus (we care about quantity
and reliability, not speed), which is obviously not a performance deamon
but should
