I'm not 'guru' or 'core-unix/hardware' so I may be wrong... anyway, I also have a raid HPT372 motherboard so I did my searching and found out:
1) I think have seen HPT372 is 'reported' to be supported on kernel 2.4.19. Mandrake 8.2 comes with 2.4.18 by default, so you'll need to update or patch the kernel. I haven't done myself yet but as soon as I do some things before I'll try it to see if it fix it (or maybe you tell me how about before O;-)) 2) As far as I know, you can connect up to 2 drives in a single ide channel and each one will have its own bus speed, but if you access both of them at the same time you share the bandwith between them, so the more slow the drive is the more it will 'disturb' the other. Conclusion: try not to share ide channels if possible and if you have to, try not to share the most used/important ones and not to mix very quick ones with lamers ones... 3) Probably your motherboard will have a couple of ide belonging to HPT372 *AND* another couple of 'normal' ide channels, all fully operative at the same time. If so, you have a total of 4 ide channels (up to 8 ide drives!!!) what means you can connect the cdrom in one channel and still can put 3 more ide drives in 3 independent ide channels!! Good luck... PS: I'm not using HPT372 at the moment (I have it bios disabled) as I'm using an 'old' HPT370 pci ide raid I had from a previous configuration. Neither I am or will use hardware raid and already have soft raid 0 with no problem at all :) El jue, 05-09-2002 a las 20:19, Mark Stewart escribi�: > > > > > > > > > > Synopsis: Slaving the Cdrom should be OK. > > > > > > > > > > That makes sense as I recall civileme describing a quite > > elaborate soft RAID > > > setup on a board with only 2 IDE channels. > > > > > > But am I remembering correctly that having a slower device (my CDROM is > > > ATA33 while the disk is at least ATA100) on the same channel > > mandates that > > > both drives operate at the lower transfer rate? SCSI, at least > > once upon a > > > time,worked like this. Has this been an issue for you (balancing the > > > increased speed of the raid against the slower disk speed)? Or > > this just the > > > case when both devices are being accessed at the same time? > > > > I am fairly certain that caveats you refer to for SCSI don't apply to > > IDE. For one thing, I've never noticed a slowdown myself with > > dissimilar devices on the IDE bus. For another, devices are recognized > > individually (type and speed) when the system boots up. In addition, if > > there was a problem, then anybody with an ATA100 drive would be wasting > > their money if they bought a CDROM and put it on the same bus. I > > believe that one of the positive things about IDE (besides being cheap) > > is that the devices are dealt with pretty much on an individual basis. > > > > Cool. So worse case, the 372 _isn't_ supported but I can use my second > controller to stripe the RAID. Maybe 9.0 will solve the problem and in the > meantime... > > > The problem comes in when you have a raid array in which one of the > > devices is a slave. When that happens, the master device must oversee > > data transactions (during stripe operations) not only for itself, but > > also for it's slave. This makes the concept of dividing the work > > between two peripheral devices impotent. When you *do* have only master > > devices in the array, it equates to a (x * 100)% performance increase > > (if it's Raid 0) where x is the total number of devices. Because the > > work that was done by one is now done by several. > > > > The Highpoint and generic IDE buses can be maxed out throughputwise, but > > not, I think, by only one master device per channel. > > > > > > > > > > Right and I'm only bothering with this because I need this box > > to be as fast > > > i/o wise as it can be and the hardware budget has already been > > spent for the > > > year... > > > > I know where you're coming from..been there and got the t-shirt > > and sweatband. You are headed in the right direction. > > > > The cool thing is that your generic IDE channels can be freed up for > > experimenting with other peripherals; and you won't ever have to muck > > around with the channels your primary devices are on. > > > > > > > This is what I figured I ought to be doing--leaving the RAID disabled in > > > BIOS--but, as I indicated, DiskDrake does not see the Highpoint > > controller's > > > IDE channels at all. Do you know if there a secret handshake I > > have to give > > > DiskDrake to get it to see the controller? > > > > This is worrisome. I can't offer advice on the 372, since I don't have > > one; but I'm surprised that Diskdrake is croaking. Have you tried an > > install with the drives already partitioned, and highpoint raid > > deactivated? > > > > My other disk is partitioned so I'll check that tonight. > > cheers, > ::mark > > > ---- > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com _______________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger Nueva versi�n: Webcam, voz, y mucho m�s �Gratis! Desc�rgalo ya desde http://messenger.yahoo.es
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
