On 13:04 Fri 20 Jan , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Based on your post to my other thread I've been looking at the drives you
mentioned. What do you know about the WD Caviar drives? They are cheaper
than the Raptors.
I try to avoid Western Digital in general, except for the Raptors. I
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 08:16:42 -0500, Bill Roberts wrote:
The Raptors are expensive because of the speed, 10,000 rpm vs. 7,200
rpm. They are supposed to be built more ruggedly, an attempt by Western
Digital to steal some of high profit SCSI market.
The WD Raptors were made for that market, they
O 13:33 Thu 19 Jan , Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
I'm moving from SCSI to SATA and was wondering if anyone has any experience
with the speed of software RAID vs hardware RAID. I'm currently using
hardware RAID.
I've have two Western Digital Raptor WD740GD 74GB 10,000 RPM 8MB Cache
Serial
: [gentoo-user] SATA Hardware vs Software RAID
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thursday 19 January 2006 18:33, Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
I'm moving from SCSI to SATA and was wondering if anyone has any experience
with the speed of software RAID vs hardware RAID. I'm currently using
hardware RAID.
Yesterday an IBM ServeRAID decided to mark it's 3 SCSI disks as defunct
Thanks for the in-the-field experience. My feeling was as you indicated that
CPUs are cheap and powerful so they can do the work. However, I like to hear
from others who have been there!
On Thursday January 19 2006 14:39, Mike Williams wrote:
On Thursday 19 January 2006 18:33, Brett I.
Mike Williams wrote:
Yesterday an IBM ServeRAID decided to mark it's 3 SCSI disks as defunct when
they are all in fact perfectly fine, giving me a 4am finish this morning
after the major hassle of rebuilding, so I'm now heavily biased against
hardware RAID, when I know software RAID is fully
On Jan 19, 2006, at 2:23 PM, kashani wrote:
Mike Williams wrote:
Yesterday an IBM ServeRAID decided to mark it's 3 SCSI disks as
defunct when they are all in fact perfectly fine, giving me a 4am
finish this morning after the major hassle of rebuilding, so I'm
now heavily biased against
John Jolet wrote:
I personally prefer hardware raid, because if you go
software raid, I don't believe your /boot partition can exist on the
raid. so each drive would have to have a /boot partitionor has
that need been alleviated?
Not true. Of course /boot can be on raid too, but in
On Jan 19, 2006, at 3:02 PM, Jarry wrote:
John Jolet wrote:
I personally prefer hardware raid, because if you go
software raid, I don't believe your /boot partition can exist on the
raid. so each drive would have to have a /boot partitionor has
that need been alleviated?
Not true.
@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] SATA Hardware vs Software RAID
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:02:42 +0100
John Jolet wrote:
I personally prefer hardware raid, because if you go
software raid, I don't believe your /boot partition can exist on the
raid. so each drive would have to have a /boot
I am running it on the ICH6 software raid just for clarification.
From: Christopher Mosher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] SATA Hardware vs Software RAID
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:36:28 -0600
I am currently
12 matches
Mail list logo
