On 4/19/05, Richard Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark Knecht wrote: > > >Hi, > > Is there anything that can be said about which FS might be more > >reliable if using some form of RAID? I don't know much about RAID yet > >but I'm starting to consider it for some of my setup here. Disks are > >getting very cheap. 1394/USB2.0 hot plugable devices sound good to me. > >I use 1394 already for audio recording under Linux. > > > > So, what about RAID. About even with all FS's? > > > > > > AFAICT, yes. I use software RAID0 on my laptop, previously with XFS, > now with reiserfs. No ill effects to be reported. > > Are you meaning to use something like RAID1 with the USB/1394 disks? > RAID0 seems kind of pointless to me in that configuration, because the > bandwidth of the USB2.0/1394 bus will really be your limiting factor > with any typical hard disk today. >
I need to learn the RAID levels, but what I mean is I think what's called mirroring. Two or more drives with identical data for redundancy. In my case I have three 1394 controllers in the same machine. I was considering putting identical drives on each cable in parallel so the 1394 bandwidth is essentically trippled and the same data is written and read to all drives. Seems to me the only overhead is then 3x disk bandwidth across the PCI bus as well as the verification that all 3 drives return the same data. Does it matter at all which FS I choose in this configuration. Logic would tell me to choose the FS that's fastest since I have 3 drives for redundancy. However if there is some reason not to use XFS or reiserfs in that configuration then I think that's the basis of my question. - Mark -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
