Drew wrote:
>> I blame Adaptec for the dominance of IDE. Â Seriously.
>>
>> If Adaptec A) hadn't had the lionshare of the SCSI mindset in the PC
>> business back in the 90s, and B) hadn't made so much overpriced buggy
>> crap, we'd all be using SCSI today.
>
> Yes and No. I remember playing with it
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Drew wrote:
I blame Adaptec for the dominance of IDE. Seriously.
If Adaptec A) hadn't had the lionshare of the SCSI mindset in the
PC business back in the 90s, and B) hadn't made so much overpriced
buggy crap, we'd all be using SCSI today.
Yes and No. I remember playing
> I blame Adaptec for the dominance of IDE. Seriously.
>
> If Adaptec A) hadn't had the lionshare of the SCSI mindset in the PC
> business back in the 90s, and B) hadn't made so much overpriced buggy
> crap, we'd all be using SCSI today.
Yes and No. I remember playing with it back in the 90's and
> My scepticism regarding SMART data continues ... the flaky drive
>showed no errors, and a full test and full zero-write using the WD
>diagnostics revealed no errors either. If the drive is bad, there's
>no evidence that would cause WD to issue an RMA.
I've been having a rash of drive failures
On 03/07/11 10:43 AM, Chuck Munro wrote:
> I haven't used Adaptec cards for
> many years, mostly because their SCSI controllers back in the early days
> were junk.
I blame Adaptec for the dominance of IDE. Seriously.
If Adaptec A) hadn't had the lionshare of the SCSI mindset in the PC
business
On 03/07/2011 09:00 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Charles Polisher
> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Fakeraid#Firmware.2Fdriver-based_RAID
>> > covers fake RAID.
> Ouch. That was*precisely* why I used the 2410, not the 14
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Charles Polisher wrote:
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Fakeraid#Firmware.2Fdriver-based_RAID
> covers fake RAID.
Ouch. That was *precisely* why I used the 2410, not the 1420, SATA
card, some years back. It was nominally more expensive but well w
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
> I like Adaptec for price/performance, and good Linux overall
> compatibility (including CentOS). Just don't order those "fell off the
> truck" Taiwan specials that are clearly Adaptec chipsets, but have
> actually had the numbers filed off.
Adaptec is proud of their
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Chuck Munro wrote:
>
> On 03/06/2011 09:00 AM, compdoc wrote:
>>
>>> >Regarding the Marvell drivers, I had good luck with the 'sata_mv' driver
>>> >in Scientific Linux 6 just yesterday, running a pair of 4-port PCIe-x4
>>> >Tempo 'Sonnet' controller cards.
>> Are th
On 03/06/2011 09:00 AM, compdoc wrote:
>
>> >Regarding the Marvell drivers, I had good luck with the 'sata_mv' driver
>> >in Scientific Linux 6 just yesterday, running a pair of 4-port PCIe-x4
>> >Tempo 'Sonnet' controller cards.
> Are those the Mac/Windows Sonnet cards that go for less than $200?
On 03/05/11 7:01 AM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
>
> areca works..
>
>
for SAS, I prefer LSI Logic.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>Regarding the Marvell drivers, I had good luck with the 'sata_mv' driver
>in Scientific Linux 6 just yesterday, running a pair of 4-port PCIe-x4
>Tempo 'Sonnet' controller cards.
Are those the Mac/Windows Sonnet cards that go for less than $200?
What kind of performance you seeing? Are you doing
On 03/05/2011 09:00 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:16 PM, compdoc wrote:
>>> >>If the Marvell drivers don't pan out, it looks like I'll have
>>> >>to either spend money on a 3Ware|LSI|Promise controller
>> >
>> > The 3ware are excellent...
> And Promise, historically,
areca works..
eero
On 5 Mar 2011 16:36, "Nico Kadel-Garcia" wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:16 PM, compdoc wrote:
>>>If the Marvell drivers don't pan out, it looks like I'll have
>>>to either spend money on a 3Ware|LSI|Promise controller
>>
>> The 3ware are excellent...
>
> And Promise, histor
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:16 PM, compdoc wrote:
>>If the Marvell drivers don't pan out, it looks like I'll have
>>to either spend money on a 3Ware|LSI|Promise controller
>
> The 3ware are excellent...
And Promise, historically, is *not*.
___
CentOS maili
>If the Marvell drivers don't pan out, it looks like I'll have
>to either spend money on a 3Ware|LSI|Promise controller
The 3ware are excellent...
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 03/04/2011 09:00 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> On 3/3/11 6:52 PM, Chuck Munro wrote:
>> >
>> > I've been on a real roller coaster ride getting a large virtual host up
>> > and running. One troublesome thing I've discovered (the hard way) is
>> > that the drivers for Marvell SAS/SATA chips st
On 3/3/11 6:52 PM, Chuck Munro wrote:
>
> I've been on a real roller coaster ride getting a large virtual host up
> and running. One troublesome thing I've discovered (the hard way) is
> that the drivers for Marvell SAS/SATA chips still have a few problems.
>
> After Googling around quite a bit, I
18 matches
Mail list logo
