On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Thomas Waldmann wrote:
Cable length is not so much a pain as the number of cables. Of course with
scsi you want multiple channels anyway for performance, so the situation
is very similar to ide. A cable mess.
Well, it is at least only a half / third / ... of the
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Keith Underwood wrote:
I also experimented with the master/slave setup, and my recollection is
also that it was worse than half the performance of the master only setup.
Keith
I do not know about performance, but if you build raid array using
masters and slaves on
I do not know about performance, but if you build raid array using
masters and slaves on same channel, it will lack redudancy because
of if master dies, it will take slave with it ? So raid1 or raid5
using masters AND slaves is totally unwise?
I can only speak from experience. I have 3
Cable length is not so much a pain as the number of cables. Of course with
scsi you want multiple channels anyway for performance, so the situation
is very similar to ide. A cable mess.
Well, it is at least only a half / third / ... of the cable count of "tuned"
single-device-on-a-cable EIDE
Thomas Davis wrote:
JMy 4way IDE based, 2 channels (ie, master/slave, master/slave) built
using IBM 16gb Ultra33 drives in RAID0 are capable of about 25mb/sec
across the raid.
nice to hear :-) not a very big performance degradation
Adding a Promise 66 card, changing to all masters, got
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
john b said:
Performance is pretty good - these numbers are for a first generation
smartcan (spring '99)
these numbers are also useless since they are much too close to your ram size,
and bonnie only shows how fast your system runs bonnie :) a better benchmark
Brian Grossman wrote:
RZ
RZ Of course this is not the only thing the affects speed. Other issues that
RZ make our units fast is the PCI bus which is 133Mbs and DMA directly to
RZ drives.
It is however, still unclear whether it's safe to run reiserfs on a
raidzone. I have a question about
Benno Senoner wrote:
I was wondering how much IDE channels linux 2.2 can handle,
can it handle 8 channels ?
I think the limit with the later 2.2 kernel ide patches is 10 IDE channels.
I have run quite a bit with 4 Promise cards (8 channels),
plus the 2 onboard PIIX channels.
Jan Edler
NEC
[ Tuesday, January 11, 2000 ] Andy Poling wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
If you cut the cable
lengthwise (no, don't cut the wires) between wires (don't break the
insulation on the wires themselves, just the connecting plastic) you can
get your cables to be 1/4 the
Getting back to the discussion of Hardware vs. Software raid...
Can someone say *definitively* *where* the raid-5 code is being run on a
*current* Raidzone product? Originally, it was an "md" process running
on the system cpu. Currently I'm not so sure. The SmartCan *does* have
its own
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jan 11 21:44:29 2000
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
If you cut the cable
lengthwise (no, don't cut the wires) between wires (don't break the
insulation on the wires themselves, just the connecting plastic) you can
get your cables to be 1/4 the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 11-Jan-2000 James Manning wrote:
[ Tuesday, January 11, 2000 ] Andy Poling wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
If you cut the cable
lengthwise (no, don't cut the wires) between wires (don't break the
insulation on the wires
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, James Manning wrote:
If you cut the cable
lengthwise (no, don't cut the wires) between wires (etc.)
I don't know about IDE, but I'm pretty sure that's a big no-no for SCSI
cables. The alternating conductors in the ribbon cable are sig, gnd, sig,
gnd, sig, etc.
Title: RE: Ribbon Cabling (was Re: large ide raid system)
You may be thinking of differential SCSI which uses a balanced (and twisted) pair for each data and signal line. In the old days, there was only one flavor of differential, and it was popular at least on Hewlett-Packard 800 series
Jan Edler wrote:
It all depends on your minimum acceptable performance level.
I know my master/slave test setup couldn't keep up with fast ethernet
(10 MByte/s). I don't remember if it was 1 Mbyte/s or not.
Fastethernet is 12mb/sec, Ethernet is 1.2mb/sec.
My 4way IDE based, 2 channels
$horse='dead';
beat($horse);
[ Wednesday, January 12, 2000 ] Bohumil Chalupa wrote:
,,Termination`` means nothing else then a resistance at the end of the
cable (each pair) that is equivalent to the cable impedance. And the
impedance depends on the cable geometry (and material, of course).
James Manning wrote:
[ Tuesday, January 11, 2000 ] Thomas Davis wrote:
---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input--
--Random--
-Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block---
--Seeks---
MachineMB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec
Dan Hollis wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Jan Edler wrote:
Cable length is not so much a pain as the number of cables. Of course with
scsi you want multiple channels anyway for performance, so the situation
is very similar to ide. A cable mess.
There's a (relatively) nice way to get around
Jan Edler wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 12:49:29PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Jan Edler wrote:
- Performance is really horrible if you use IDE slaves.
Even though you say you aren't performance-sensitive, I'd
recommend against it if possible.
My tests
Thomas Davis wrote:
James Manning wrote:
Well, it's kind of on-topic thanks to this post...
Has anyone used the systems/racks/appliances/etc from raidzone.com?
If you believe their site, it certainly looks like a good possibility.
Yes.
It's pricey. Not much cheaper that SCSI
SCSI works quite well with many devices connected to the same cable. The PCI bus
turns out to be the bottleneck with the faster scsi modes, so it doesn't matter
how many channels you have. If performance was the issue, but the original poster
wasn't interested in performance, multiple channels
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
If you cut the cable
lengthwise (no, don't cut the wires) between wires (don't break the
insulation on the wires themselves, just the connecting plastic) you can
get your cables to be 1/4 the normal width (up until you get to the
connector).
I
John Burton wrote:
Thomas Davis wrote:
James Manning wrote:
Well, it's kind of on-topic thanks to this post...
Has anyone used the systems/racks/appliances/etc from raidzone.com?
If you believe their site, it certainly looks like a good possibility.
Yes.
It's
Benno Senoner wrote:
Jan Edler wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 12:49:29PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Jan Edler wrote:
- Performance is really horrible if you use IDE slaves.
Even though you say you aren't performance-sensitive, I'd
recommend against
On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 04:25:27PM +0100, Benno Senoner wrote:
Jan Edler wrote:
I wasn't advising against IDE, only against the use of slaves.
With UDMA-33 or -66, masters work quite well,
if you can deal with the other constraints that I mentioned
(cable length, PCI slots, etc).
Do
[ Tuesday, January 11, 2000 ] John Burton wrote:
Performance is pretty good - these numbers are for a first generation
smartcan (spring '99)
Could you re-run the raidzone and softraid with a size of 512MB or larger?
Could you run the tiobench.pl from http://www.iki.fi/miku/tiotest
(after
[ Sunday, January 9, 2000 ] Franc Carter wrote:
I am planning to set up a large ide raid5 system. From reading the
archives of the list it looks like the way to go is with promise
ultra66 cards, making sure that I have good cables. I am hopeing
to get a minimum of 8 drives into a machine. My
Franc Carter wrote:
I am planning to set up a large ide raid5 system. From reading the
archives of the list it looks like the way to go is with promise
ultra66 cards, making sure that I have good cables. I am hopeing
to get a minimum of 8 drives into a machine. My current plan is for
the
From my experience, it works fairly well, but there are some constraints:
- Performance is really horrible if you use IDE slaves.
Even though you say you aren't performance-sensitive, I'd
recommend against it if possible.
- Thus, to get 8 drives in a machine, you not only need
On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 12:49:29PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Jan Edler wrote:
- Performance is really horrible if you use IDE slaves.
Even though you say you aren't performance-sensitive, I'd
recommend against it if possible.
My tests indicate UDMA performs
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Jan Edler wrote:
- Performance is really horrible if you use IDE slaves.
Even though you say you aren't performance-sensitive, I'd
recommend against it if possible.
My tests indicate UDMA performs favorably with ultrascsi, at about 1/6 the
cost. Cost is often a big
On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 02:03:14AM -0500, James Manning wrote:
Has anyone used the systems/racks/appliances/etc from raidzone.com?
If you believe their site, it certainly looks like a good possibility.
The raidzone stuff works, and the packaging is nice.
They provide much more scalability than
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Jan Edler wrote:
My tests indicate UDMA performs favorably with ultrascsi, at about 1/6 the
cost. Cost is often a big factor.
I wasn't advising against IDE, only against the use of slaves.
Here we agree :D 1 device per channel. (When will any vendors implement
IDE
James Manning wrote:
Well, it's kind of on-topic thanks to this post...
Has anyone used the systems/racks/appliances/etc from raidzone.com?
If you believe their site, it certainly looks like a good possibility.
Yes.
It's pricey. Not much cheaper that SCSI chassis. You only save money
I am planning to set up a large ide raid5 system. From reading the
archives of the list it looks like the way to go is with promise
ultra66 cards, making sure that I have good cables. I am hopeing
to get a minimum of 8 drives into a machine. My current plan is for
the following config:-
37gig
35 matches
Mail list logo
