On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 08:39:50PM -0700, Bryan Vyhmeister wrote:
> On May 7, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Joachim Schipper wrote:
>
> >On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 02:02:19PM -0700, Bryan Vyhmeister wrote:
> >>On May 7, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Matthieu Herrb wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'm using a thecus 2100 with raidframe to do raid 1. A bit slow, but
> >>>with 512MB RAM it's acceptable.
> >>
> >>Would ccd(4) be any faster? Also, what sort of RAM does it take?
> >>Thanks for your response.
> >
> >ccd is likely to be slightly faster, but it *will* eat your data. Just
> >stick with RAIDframe, or hardware RAID, or the upcoming softraid (like
> >RAIDframe, but newer and shinier; I presume it'll be announced on
> >undeadly.org one of these days). Worrying about ccd/RAIDframe memory
> >usage really isn't necessary; both don't use memory on a scale that
> >you
> >will notice with that amount of memory in the box.
>
> So you are saying that ccd(4) has reliability problems? I actually
> meant to ask what type of physical memory does the box take. Thanks
> for your response.
No no, ccd(4) works as designed. And for concatenated disks, it does
exactly what you would expect that to be. For mirrored disks, though,
you'd like it to have better support for rebuilding after failures.
Joachim
--
TFMotD: tset (1) - terminal initialization
