RAID 5 solutions?

Dimitris Dimitris
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.

Several reasons:

1) Bandwidth (ATA/133) is extremely lower compared to a U160 scsi contro=
ller. Adverts
on tomshardware and other places show nice graphs and compare ATA/133 to=
 SCSI
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=
aid work.
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=
ick.


=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 mailing list