Nice looking 'disk array'

[Madison Kelly]

Byron Sonne wrote:
> IMO, hardware raid is a better performer and more reliable. When it's
> hardware that's where the real advantages come in.

I feel that depends on the controller and hardware. I've seen so many 
"hardware" RAID controllers, which in reality are little more than the 
equivalent of winmodems, fail. Then unless you have a spare controller, 
you are SOL. In the cases where the alternative is low-end RAID hardware 
like that, I always recommend using software arrays. At least then the 
array is not tied to the hardware.

Now, if you get a controller with a dedicated processor then you are in 
business. Generally those controllers have (at least) a dedicated MIPS 
CPU for handling XOR calculations (specially important in a failed 
state) with it's own dedicated RAM for caching and often even have their 
own battery backup on-board to maintain unwritten data in case of a 
power failure. On DB systems, this is specially important.

http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/products/sas_cards/performance/SAS-4800/

Look like it's inline with what I am talking about (though I couldn't 
see specs on it's proc, but it's priced in the range to have one).

My $0.02 :)

Madi
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists