Ward Vandewege wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:28:17AM -0400, Christopher Meadors wrote: >> On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 10:20 -0400, Ward Vandewege wrote: >> >>> ... and if you buy a spare hardware raid controller of *every type you have >>> in use*. >>> >>> That's the main disadvantage of hardware raid over software raid - if the >>> controller dies, you're dead in the water unless you have a spare that's >>> exactly the same type. With software raid, if the controller or box die, you >>> just stick the disks in another box and you're on your way. >> That depends on the controller, a lot of recent ones are using the Linux >> on-disk format. So if the controller fails you can just throw the disks >> in a Linux machine and still have access to your data. > > Examples please. This is interesting. I've yet to encounter a hw-raid > controller that did not do proprietary - and model-specific - formatting of > its drives. > > Thanks, > Ward. > >
I have yet to encounter one that *did* so for SCSI and RAID1 - or perhaps more accuratley, did so in a manner that interfered with mounting the drives to another make of controller w/o need of a 'rebuild'. OTOH, I'm partial to those using LSI chipsets. For most others I have used 'duplexing' so each controller was not aware it was a part of a RAID. But yes, almost every other RAID 'level' *except* 1 or 0 will vary in (at least) how parity, ECC, et all are stored. Bill -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
