Its an ML350. I know they are real cheap, however the alternative is clone based servers, so I'm real happy there is a budget line. Now there is no excuse not to have server class machines.

I should have checked the source myself. I see that 4.9-RELEASE uses an older version of ciss.c ( that doesn't mention the 641 driver, but it is in STABLE.

BUT I have gotten bitten in the past with 'supported' equipment not being very well supported. On Compaq servers. So I was hoping for a testimonial.

I have used the old Smart Array controllers with good success. As for performance, the 641 should be much faster than the 532.

Thanks Olaf!

Olaf Hoyer wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Tim Pushor wrote:

Hi all,

We are going to be replacing one of our older systems here with a new
HP/Compaq server and want to buy a (cheap) supported hardware raid
adapter. Compaq/HP used to be so easy.

The system we are looking at has either a Compaq 532 or 641 depending on
the processor speed (!). I see the 532 is supported, any word on the 641?


BTW:Which server model do you plan to buy?

In  $FreeBSD: src/sys/dev/ciss/ciss.c,v 2003/12/13 07:56:28 ps
Exp $

both models appear:
ciss_vendor_data[] = {
   { 0x0e11, 0x4070, CISS_BOARD_SA5,   "Compaq Smart Array 5300" },
   { 0x0e11, 0x4080, CISS_BOARD_SA5B,  "Compaq Smart Array 5i" },
   { 0x0e11, 0x4082, CISS_BOARD_SA5B,  "Compaq Smart Array 532" },
   { 0x0e11, 0x4083, CISS_BOARD_SA5B,  "HP Smart Array 5312" },
   { 0x0e11, 0x4091, CISS_BOARD_SA5,   "HP Smart Array 6i" },
   { 0x0e11, 0x409A, CISS_BOARD_SA5,   "HP Smart Array 641" },
   { 0x0e11, 0x409B, CISS_BOARD_SA5,   "HP Smart Array 642" },
   { 0x0e11, 0x409C, CISS_BOARD_SA5,   "HP Smart Array 6400" },
   { 0x0e11, 0x409D, CISS_BOARD_SA5,   "HP Smart Array 6400 EM" },

But I cannot comment on stability fo the models mentioned above...

I have some boxes here, that use the smartarry 5 and 5iplus with 2003
Server, and I had some old 360 g1 and g2, the g2 having the SA5 onboard,
and those were rock-solid.

But with the PCI ones I have no hands-on-experience, but it should be
the same like the onboard ones. Regarding terms of data security, they
are not the fastest, but reliable.

(OK, could be that 5.2 and GEOM still have some rough edges, I had mine
running 4.8-stable)


[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to