Hi Steven, This mail and my first response did cross, so here are some additional thoughts.
> -----Original Message----- > Then you show how little you have learned about the hardware > and the system in general. ALL Zapata based hardware > generates 1000 interupts a second regardless of activity. It > does so because a choice was made that the complexity and > cost involved in adding buffers and hardware to service those > buffers was too much. It was deemed that under most > situations, a PC is capable of handling that kind of load. Agreed. I've been rubbed in this issue quite a long time ago, and have learned from it. In my setups this only became a problem on very high loads and disk-io, not in an idle state, as the OP now has stated. > So now we find out you are using the linux software raid to > do IDE based mirroring. Did you look into the preformance hit > you take when mirroring and worse when you eat the CPU with > this performance hit so you can write the data twice to the > IDE bus. Expect this will be a problem if the software raid > will give up itself when zapata asks for an interupt. > If there is enough of these, and your system gets hung, your > going to have data loss to the journal and then to the rest > of the drives. Worse yet, if one drive had the updated info > and it couldn't write to the second drive, then you have > trouble concerning keeping them both in sync. Very much correct, thank you for pointing this out. However, for most setups I deem this also an acceptable 'risk' since having a good way to keep going even during disk failure is also valuable. Not so valueable as to go with hardware raid though :-) I would sooner just add another box in failover config. Best regards, Florian _______________________________________________ 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
