RAID 5 solutions?
Mon Nov 25 21:16:52 GMT 2002
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:41:52 -0600, Jonathan Belson wrote:
>Using SCSI would be a lot more expensive than IDE; does it have
>any significant advantages for this application? I'm not
>expecting the machine to be pounding its harddrives 24x7.
>From personal experience, IDE is bad.
1) Bandwidth (ATA/133) is extremely lower compared to a U160 scsi contro=
on tomshardware and other places show nice graphs and compare ATA/133 to=
as near equals, thats all lies in my experience.
2) CPU usage. Even though their advertising says the opposite. They use =
A LOT of cpu.
So don't be alarmed to see a huge increase of cpu usage.
3) They are NOT REAL hardware RAID. They require software to operate, an=
d i dont mean
the management software, i mean that the DRIVER actually does half the r=
In SCSI raid, the operating system only looks at a single harddrive, it =
doesn't care if its raid'ed
since the controller does all the raid work. I call this cheating and th=
eir advertising should
mention that the driver does half the job (but thats why they are cheap.=
Ofcourse an ide raid controller are considerable cheaper, so take your p=
=FE H.I.C. & D.B.S. =FE OS/2 Warp =FE Hellas =FE
=FE ServerConfig =FE ConfigEdit =FE OS/2 UK UG =FE
=FE Sometimes i think there might be more to life =FE
=FE than having a really really ridiculously fast computer =FE
More information about the Ukfreebsd