Why are you still using CentOS 4?
Do you have an issue with Centos 4? I prefer to wait for RH to work most
of the kinks with their new releases. Centos 5 has new versions of
various libraries and software. They have never been able to guarantee
zero breakage. Eg: I have heard of
Christopher Chan wrote:
Why are you still using CentOS 4?
Do you have an issue with Centos 4? I prefer to wait for RH to work
most of the kinks with their new releases. Centos 5 has new versions
of various libraries and software. They have never been able to
guarantee zero breakage. Eg:
So they say, and correct me if i'm wrong, that RAID10 is a RAID 1 of
RAID 0. A mirror of stripe sets. You said it's not that, i lost you on
this one.
Heh, I dare say most of us are lost on this one. It is a blinking new
module for md that is not available on Centos 4. This should help
Christopher Chan wrote:
So they say, and correct me if i'm wrong, that RAID10 is a RAID 1 of
RAID 0. A mirror of stripe sets. You said it's not that, i lost you
on this one.
Heh, I dare say most of us are lost on this one. It is a blinking new
module for md that is not available on
Linux wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 4:19 AM, Christopher Chan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And stick with md-raid 10 (also known as software raid) because it is
much more intelligently designed than any
closed-source-embedded-raid-controller.
This was valid until...quite a few years ago.
Has
Just asking. I don't use CentOS as a desktop OS, so the firefox problem
doesn't bother me at all, but CentOS 5 is an upgrade in many regards,
and I find it very stable. I have yet to try RAID10 with it though, as
soon as I can get my hands on enough spare HDD's :)
I believe you cannot do
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 3:16 AM, Christopher Chan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe you cannot do it via the installer yet. Can anybody confirm the
presence of raid10 personality in Centos 5?
Installer does not have raid10 as an option. Not sure whether boot cd
has this module or not. But
Linux wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 3:16 AM, Christopher Chan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe you cannot do it via the installer yet. Can anybody confirm the
presence of raid10 personality in Centos 5?
Installer does not have raid10 as an option. Not sure whether boot cd
has this module
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Guy Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, i respect Open Source (and your opinion) very much but your comparison
imply that you had access to Adaptec's code! Maybe you really had access, i
don't know. If it's the case, then thanks you for having shared this
Warren Young wrote:
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
So, how does it perform with 6 discs for example? Say I have 3 HDD's
in RAID-0, and another 3 in RAID-0, then RAID-1 the 2 RAID-0 stripes.
There's actually two kinds of RAID-10. Some like to say RAID-01 or
RAID-1+0 or things like that to distinguish
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 4:19 AM, Christopher Chan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And stick with md-raid 10 (also known as software raid) because it is
much more intelligently designed than any
closed-source-embedded-raid-controller.
This was valid until...quite a few years ago.
Has hardware-raid
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Guy Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And stick with md-raid 10 (also known as software raid) because it is
much more intelligently designed than any
closed-source-embedded-raid-controller.
More intelligently designed - Could you please tell us more on this
Linux wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Guy Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More intelligently designed - Could you please tell us more on this one?
Simple answer: Open Source (and for a long time) I guess you know what
it means. But I wander if source of Adaptec raid controller's
we have DELL 6800 server with 12 internal disks in it. O.S. is CENTOS 4.6 and
SCSI control card is PERC 4e/di.
We plan to configure 4 disks (5,8,9,10) as RAID5 or RAID50. This logical
volume will be use as file systems and store database backup files.
Can anyone tell me which one is better
mcclnx mcc wrote:
we have DELL 6800 server with 12 internal disks in it. O.S. is CENTOS
4.6 and SCSI control card is PERC 4e/di.
We plan to configure 4 disks (5,8,9,10) as RAID5 or RAID50. This
logical volume will be use as file systems and store database backup
files.
Can anyone tell me
You're going to need two RAID controllers and 6 drives to do RAID 50.
RAID 50 will be faster, but costs more in drives and controllers.
Jason
www.cyborgworkshop.org
mcclnx mcc wrote:
we have DELL 6800 server with 12 internal disks in it. O.S. is CENTOS
4.6 and SCSI control card is PERC
John R Pierce wrote:
raid50 requires 2 or more raid 5 volumes.
with 4 disks, thats just not an option.
for file storage (including backup files from a database), raid5 is
probably fine... for primary database tablespace storage, I'd only use
raid1 or raid10.
RAID-10 has only one perfect
Warren Young wrote:
John R Pierce wrote:
raid50 requires 2 or more raid 5 volumes.
with 4 disks, thats just not an option.
for file storage (including backup files from a database), raid5 is
probably fine... for primary database tablespace storage, I'd only use
raid1 or raid10.
RAID-10 has
Jason Clark wrote:
You're going to need two RAID controllers and 6 drives to do RAID 50.
RAID 50 will be faster, but costs more in drives and controllers.
Jason
www.cyborgworkshop.org
mcclnx mcc wrote:
we have DELL 6800 server with 12 internal disks in it. O.S. is CENTOS
4.6 and
I prefer raid level of ibm
For Dell you can find more info about raid level at
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/storage/RAID/RAIDbk0.pdf
But add hot spare disks
Nightduke
2008/5/22, Warren Young [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
So, how does it perform with 6 discs for
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Guy Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You do not need two (2) raid controllers unless you want to have
redundancy at the controller level. Adaptec, 3Ware, etc do RAID 50.
For RAID 50, you need at least 6 disks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID
For
And stick with md-raid 10 (also known as software raid) because it is
much more intelligently designed than any
closed-source-embedded-raid-controller.
Pretty strong opinion that would be disputed by many don't you think?
I would venture to say that any large system involved in SLA's with 5 9's
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Warren Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At any rate, RAID-10 shouldn't be *slower*.
I've actually seen equipments where RAID-10 was slower for reading
than RAID-5 with the same number of disks. RAID-10 depends on the
ability of the controller of balancing reads
Your way has the advantage of letting you add disks in pairs, but to get
that you get only single-disk redundancy: if a second disk goes out,
your array is gone, no matter which disk it is.
Nah, if you lose both disks that belong to the same stripe array, the
other stripe array is still
And stick with md-raid 10 (also known as software raid) because it is
much more intelligently designed than any
closed-source-embedded-raid-controller.
This was valid until...quite a few years ago.
Nowadays hardware raid frightens me because of the need to have spare
raid-controllers for
Linux wrote:
And stick with md-raid 10 (also known as software raid) because it is
much more intelligently designed than any
closed-source-embedded-raid-controller.
More intelligently designed - Could you please tell us more on this one?
i
Nowadays hardware raid frightens me because of the
26 matches
Mail list logo
