On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:01, Jason Lim wrote: > Case 1) > I replaced one of the disks with an old disk with bad blocks and strange [...] > My question: if this was hardware RAID 1... would this have happened? > Would the hardware RAID controller recognise the problem, and only stop > briefly, then try the second disk automatically and transparently?
Yes! That is the big advantage of hardware RAID over software RAID! > Case 2) > I simulated errors by connecting a flaky IDE cable to one of the drives. I > was hoping the software RAID would either compensate by doing most of it's > reading from the good drive (with a good cable) or labelling the flaky > cable/drive as bad, but instead it started slowing down, and writing to > the array was taking much longer and strange errors starting occurring > during writing. > > My question: would hardware raid have handled this situation any better? If (as I guess) the drive never returned a fatal error then maybe not. However hardware RAID may be smarter about such things and may just mark a drive as bad because it has to re-try some reads. I suggest talking to Neil Brown about this, what you describe sounds like a deficiency in software RAID to me. -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
