SATA vs SCSCI RAID and LINUX

[Marc Lucke]

Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:

> At 15:27 6/15/2004, Mark Susol|Ultimate Creative Media wrote:
>
>> I would want RAID-1 for mirroring ..but SATA costs << SCSCI costs and 
>> some
>> say SATA is about as good as SCSCI now.
>
>
> For single- and few-disk performance, yes. The trick is that SCSI 
> disks are essentially built much tougher in many ways and so they 
> *are* superior in an enterprise environment... it's not just about speed.
>
>> DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS ON LINUX and SATA-RAID specifically 
>> what
>> Distro are they using with what MoBO and chipset.
>
>
> Personally, I don't worry so much about mobo. Just use something 
> really stable. 3Ware for RAID cards, RAID-1 at a minimum, RAID-5 if at 
> *all* possible, and RAID-10 (a RAID-5 array built from individual 
> pairs of disks in RAID-1 arrays) when I can afford it. With RAID-10, 
> you'd have to lose at least four drives to lose the array and you 
> could theoretically lose half your drives + one (one from each pair 
> and the second drive in one pair) and still be online.
>
> And when I figure it out, using LVM to manage the partitions on that 
> array will likely make my life much easier. <grin>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
My SATA disk really sucks.  Well, not really - I'm just upset because 
PATA outperforms it under load and I think SATA should be better than 
PATA.  I've got a system @ work & one at home & the PATA disk at work 
makes the SATA disk look worse than yesterday's technology.  I bet there 
are many who have got their SATA working to their satisfaction but I say 
PATA or SCSI.  I agree with the comments about SCSI  too but SCSI is 
pretty expensive - even Apple use ATA disks for their x-raid (great 
solution!) because if a disk fails - well, who cares?  Not me.  It isn't 
like most ATA disks are that bad.

My 2c worth.