Not yet no, but that's a good suggestion and I do intend to give it a
whirl. I get about 27MB/s from raid 1 (10 is about the same) so
hopefully I can up the throughput to the speed of about one disk with
sw raid.
FYI I get more than 200 MB/s out of a Linux Software RAID5 of 3 SATA
drives (
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Simon Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That said a couple of weeks back ours corrupted a volume on replacing a dead
> hard disk, so I'm never touching these cheap and tacky LSI RAID cards ever
> again. It is suppose to just start rebuilding the array when you in
On Monday 24 November 2008 14:49:17 Glyn Astill wrote:
> --- On Mon, 24/11/08, Steve Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Yeah the battery's on it, that and the 128Mb is
> >
> > really the only reason I thought I'd give it a whirl.
> >
> >
> > Is the battery functioning? We found that the unit h
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Glyn Astill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Yeah the battery is on there, and in the BIOS it says it's
>> "PRESENT" and the status is "GOOD".
>>
>> If I remember correctly, older LSI cards had pretty poor
>> perf
--- Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah the battery is on there, and in the BIOS it says it's
> "PRESENT" and the status is "GOOD".
>
> If I remember correctly, older LSI cards had pretty poor
> performance
> in RAID 1+0 (or any layered RAID really). Have you tried setting
> up
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Glyn Astill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- On Mon, 24/11/08, Steve Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Yeah the battery's on it, that and the 128Mb is
>> really the only reason I thought I'd give it a whirl.
>> >
>> >
>> Is the battery functioning? We found t
--- On Mon, 24/11/08, Steve Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yeah the battery's on it, that and the 128Mb is
> really the only reason I thought I'd give it a whirl.
> >
> >
> Is the battery functioning? We found that the unit had to
> be on and charged before write back caching
> would work
Glyn Astill wrote:
--- On Sat, 22/11/08, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You really have two choices. First is to try and use it as
a plain
SCSI card, maybe with caching turned on, and do the raid in
software.
Second is to cut it into pieces and make jewelry out of it.
Haha, I'm
--- On Sat, 22/11/08, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had an old workstation with a 4 port SATA card (no raid) running
> software raid and it handily stomps this 8 disk machine into the ground.
Yeah, I think this machine will be going that route.
> We had a bunch of 18xx series serv
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Glyn Astill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- On Sat, 22/11/08, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You really have two choices. First is to try and use it as
>> a plain
>> SCSI card, maybe with caching turned on, and do the raid in
>> software.
>> Second
--- On Sat, 22/11/08, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You really have two choices. First is to try and use it as
> a plain
> SCSI card, maybe with caching turned on, and do the raid in
> software.
> Second is to cut it into pieces and make jewelry out of it.
Haha, I'm not really into
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Glyn Astill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi chaps,
>
> I've had this old card sitting on my desk for a while. It appears to be a
> U160 card with 128Mb BBU so I thought I'd wang it in my test machine (denian
> etch) and give it a bash.
>
> I set up 4 36Gb drives i
Hi chaps,
I've had this old card sitting on my desk for a while. It appears to be a U160
card with 128Mb BBU so I thought I'd wang it in my test machine (denian etch)
and give it a bash.
I set up 4 36Gb drives in raid 0+1, but I don't seem to be able to get more
than 20MB/s write speed out of
13 matches
Mail list logo
