[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Software Raid was ....Re: [K12OSN] HELP!!!



Hi Julius,

I should have clarified my statement.

In my experience the performance hit is greater (read noticable) on NT4
in comparison to Linux or Novell.

I totally agree that hardware raid is the better solution.

Now to dig into the depths of my memory.

RAID 0 = stripe set no parity	
RAID 1 = Mirror 		
RAID 4 = stripe set with parity drive
RAID 5 = stripe set with distributed parity

So what is RAID 6?


Cheers,
Bert

On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 02:22, Julius Szelagiewicz wrote:
> Bert,
> 	software RAID carries a performance penalty. The reason for it is
> spelled out in the very name: "software ..."; the system has to run it. it
> doesn't support disk swapping, since it is done on lvm level. There are
> many motherboards available with adaptec raid built in. the ata133 raid is
> unbelievably fast and supports raid 1 (mirroring), raid 5 (redundant data
> on all disks) and raid 6 (really neat - look it up on adaptec site). the
> raid works *before* any operating system gets into play - this is very,
> very good. you can get 2 mirrored 160GB ata133 drives for about $500. the
> systen will see one 160GB drive. you partition it as one drive. if one
> physical drive goes down, there is hardly a hiccup. same functionality is
> available for scsi. look into it, this is the best thing since striped
> drives, or was it sliced bread ...
> julius
> 
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Bert Rolston wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 19:40, Steve Wright wrote:
> >
> > >...snip...
> > >
> > > You don't need a fancy RAID controller to do this, although there might
> > > be a performance hit.  Anyone know if there is performance penalty with
> > > software RAID ?  If you are using IDE, you must put each drive on its'
> > > own IDE cable, and configure the drive as primary.
> >
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > I've used software raid without too much difficulty.
> >
> > Linux and Novell seem to do software raid efficiently. MS software raid
> > on NT4 did cause performance degradation.
> >
> > I suspect Linux and Netware are more efficient because of the way they
> > use memory for buffering and caching.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Bert
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > K12OSN mailing list
> > K12OSN redhat com
> > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn
> > For more info see <http://www.k12os.org>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> K12OSN mailing list
> K12OSN redhat com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn
> For more info see <http://www.k12os.org>






[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]