Wednesday, May 14, 2008, 5:26:01 PM, Mark Rogers wrote: > Andy Fletcher wrote: >> But in my experience you would never >> really be buying such a cheap server with the intention of putting >> h/w RAID in it, since there's a reason you only wanted a £150 box in >> the first place :
> For me, I just don't see the benefit of a dual-quad-core-processor > machine with gigabytes of RAM to server a few files over a gigabit LAN. > A Celeron could do it; throwing money at it won't really gain me > anything! So even if I did want full hardware RAID (eg if the server was > going to be hammered constantly) I'd consider offloading the processing > to a decent RAID card on principle (albeit that the CPU still wouldn't > be taxed and could probably happily handle the processing faster than > the network card could dish out the data even then). Disk read/write > speeds probably matter far more than the RAID card (he says without any > research to back him up). > I think sometimes we forget just how fast an entry level CPU is these > days. Unless the CPU is busy with other things (eg a busy database > server) I don't really see what can be gained by offloading its work to > another processor on another card. I agree, software and hardware RAID have their place. If you want redundancy without increased performance then software RAID is ideal, especially on low-end systems where cost is important. -- Best regards, Andy _______________________________________________ Peterboro mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/peterboro
