On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 10:55:52AM -0400, Paul wrote: > I also agree. You want a raid controller that has it's own CPU. You want > hot spare, hot swapping, status lights, etc. to be handled by that > controller. If you have a hot spare you want automatic cutover to that > spare drive. You are not limited to SCSI with these controllers. Some > manufactures offer ide and sata versions. If you want hot swap > capability be sure to do your homework. Some drive hardware advertised > as hot-swap capable might not work properly with the controller you select.
SATA is fast enough. In fact, ATAPI is also fast enough in most scenarios. It is just that SCSI disks/arrays tend to be of better quality (but usually much more expensive). IIRC Linux's raid support will support hot-swapping disks, but I'm not sure which disks are are supported. An external array with its own CPU doesn't necessarily mean better performance than one using the host CPU, BTW. Though it will take some load off of Asterisk. And if this is just about redundnacy and not about performance, consider not buying an expensive array at all, and using two cheap systems. The cost will be roughly the same, I believe. (RAID= "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks"). Any simple way to achive redundancy here? -- Tzafrir Cohen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | best ICQ# 16849755 | | friend _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
