* Hannes Dorbath:
> + Hardware Raids might be a bit easier to manage, if you never spend a
> few hours to learn Software Raid Tools.
I disagree. RAID management is complicated, and once there is a disk
failure, all kinds of oddities can occur which can make it quite a
challenge to get back a non
William Yu wrote:
We upgraded our disk system for our main data processing server earlier
this year. After pricing out all the components, basically we had the
choice of:
LSI MegaRaid 320-2 w/ 1GB RAM+BBU + 8 15K 150GB SCSI
or
Areca 1124 w/ 1GB RAM+BBU + 24 7200RPM 250GB SATA
My mistake
Vivek Khera wrote:
On May 9, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Sorry that is an extremely misleading statement. SATA RAID is
perfectly acceptable if you have a hardware raid controller with a
battery backup controller.
And dollar for dollar, SCSI will NOT be faster nor have the hard
On May 9, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Sorry that is an extremely misleading statement. SATA RAID is
perfectly acceptable if you have a hardware raid controller with a
battery backup controller.
And dollar for dollar, SCSI will NOT be faster nor have the hard
drive capacity
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:10:32 +0200,
"Jean-Yves F. Barbier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Naa, you can find ATA &| SATA ctrlrs for about EUR30 !
But those are the ones that you would generally be better off not using.
> Definitely NOT, however if your server doen't have a heavy load, the
> so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Hannes Dorbath wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've just had some discussion with colleagues regarding the usage of
> hardware or software raid 1/10 for our linux based database servers.
>
> I myself can't see much reason to spend $500 on high end controller
>
