Capriotti wrote:
We have some efficient IDE RAID systems nowadays that - in my
head - SHOULD
take that responsibility off the processor's shoulders.
If so, speed (mb/s) and response time should be similar to
SCSI. I have a
MB with one of those RAID controllers, but am lacking the
processor and
memory for it. But I've seen it work at a customer with VERY
good results.
Tom's just did a review of a few cards:
http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/02q4/021112/index.html
The 3ware has a cache slot which is cool. Heh, but the thing is
expensive and would defeat the purpose. I think they all support
hot swap too. But you would need the trays then and thats not cheap.
This is the RAID controller I have:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2072898246
It's ultra160 and not a bad price with the cache and cache module
included. You should be able to pick up some 9gb WD hard drives
for under $50, a little more for Seagate's. But that will get
you a nice little SCSI RAID setup. IDE is catching (or passed)
SCSI in some ways. But I have found SCSI to just not die as
easily. I just had my 1st 2 seagates die in the 5 years I have
been with my company. In the 1st 2 years, I sent EVERY single
IDE drive back to the factory that was in a machine here.
Well thats my experience. Just sharing info, not trying to start
a SCSI/IDE Jihad.
--
- m0gely
http://quake2.telestream.com/
Q2 | Q3A | Counter-strike
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
