> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Maxim Khitrov > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 8:15 PM > To: brad davison > Cc: email@example.com > Subject: Re: RAID Controller Recommendations: ARC-1210 or 9650SE-4LPML > > > On 9/5/07, brad davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >Hello, > > > > > >My two main candidates are Areca ARC-1210, and 3ware 9650SE-4LPML. > > >Both are 4-lane SATA II controllers. Both cost about the same, and > > >from what I gather, both should be supported by FreeBSD. I read the > > >reviews, but would like to get some additional feedback specifically > > >for using the two under FreeBSD (maybe one has better drivers... I > > >don't know). > > > > I just put a 3ware Escalade into our mail server. I don't have > experience > > with the model you are speaking of, but I know that 3ware and BSD have a > > good long history together. I had no problems with the > controller (but I > > did have a strange issue with some Seagate drives, replacing them with > > Western Digitals fixed that though.) > > > > >RAID5? Which one has more mature drivers? If you have some other > > >recommendations, I'm happy to hear those as well. > > > > Like I mentioned, I had no problems with the 3ware, and it had > good driver > > support in BSD. > > > > from the 3ware website::: http://www.3ware.com/support/OS-Support.asp > > 9650SE Series > > > > * FreeBSD 5.0 driver source available in 9.4.1 code set > > * FreeBSD 6.0 driver source available in 9.4.1 code set > > * FreeBSD 6.1 (x86 & x86_64) > > > > Take it easy, > > Brad > > Good to know, thanks. Would still like to know a bit more about Areca, > since I have no experience with them and only heard about their > products recently. > > As an alternative, I was considering the cheap(er) option. The > motherboard (GA-P35-DQ6) comes with 6 SATA II ports connected to > ICH9R. I have a feeling that using RAID 5 with this option would be > rather slow, that's why I'm looking into a dedicated hardware > controller. However, RAID 10 is a fairly simple implementation. I > can't use RAID 0 because I need redundancy, and RAID 1 is too slow. > RAID 10 obviously requires more drives, but for the $300 that I would > have spent on the controller, maybe instead it's worth to simply buy > an additional drive or two and use the built-in controller. > > Any thoughts on this? I could probably get 4 320GB Seagate 7200.10 > drives to begin with and have 640GB of space. Would add two more later > on when I need them. This actually turns out to be cheaper initially > than getting 3 of those drives along with a hardware controller. My > guess is that performance may also be better due to simplicity of > design. How does FreeBSD play with ICH9R RAID? >
I think if you want speed using 7200 rpm drives that your kidding yourself. Keep in mind if you do anything on an internal psuedo controller that is fancier than plain mirroring, if you lose a disk your risking ending up with a server that all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't put back together again. (without reformatting) To do it right you need a hardware controller and at least 6 spindles, plus you need to buy another drive that sits on your shelf in it's antistatic wrapper - ready to be swapped in on the day your controller reports a spindle is dead. Ted _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"