I couldn't find any answer to the question.The problem is that the installer
shows up all the disks instead of proposing to install somewhere on the
RAID5 partition, in other words, it just doesn't recognize the RAID5.
Is it possible at all to install freeBSD on one of those RAID??
I've found out
Sounds like you have one of those 'fake' raid controllers
(http://linux-ata.org/faq-sata-raid.html ), where its software raid with
a hook into the bios so its bootable, while the work is done in
software. This isnt supported by Freebsd (the fake raid 1 is supported
by the ataraid driver for many
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 03:35:54PM +0800, nodje wrote:
I couldn't find any answer to the question.The problem is that the installer
shows up all the disks instead of proposing to install somewhere on the
RAID5 partition, in other words, it just doesn't recognize the RAID5.
Is it possible at
Jerry McAllister wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 03:35:54PM +0800, nodje wrote:
I couldn't find any answer to the question.The problem is that the installer
shows up all the disks instead of proposing to install somewhere on the
RAID5 partition, in other words, it just doesn't recognize the
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 04:19:02PM -0400, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Jerry McAllister wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 03:35:54PM +0800, nodje wrote:
I couldn't find any answer to the question.The problem is that the
installer
shows up all the disks instead of proposing to install
Did you know that most oh my god RAID failures happen during the
reconstruction of a failed drive?
.Especially on SATA as the non-recoverable-bit-error math is so much
easier to run into.
I think..that on a 500G drive, there are enough bits to read/write
that mathematically you could run into a
well, you mean on RAID5 then, coz there's probably no math in
reconstructing a RAID1.
Why would the math on SATA be less reliable than on SCSI???
Where d'you read that anyway??
Jeff Mohler wrote:
Did you know that most oh my god RAID failures happen during the
reconstruction of a
SATA drives just aint built with the same resiliency as SCSI, hence
the massive difference in cost.
So..as an example, the Hitachi 500G 7K500 drive has a non recoverable
bitrate of 1 in 10^14th. The 10K300 FCAL (basically scsi) drive is 1
in 10^16th. Those two zeros mean a _lot_.
I removed a
hum
let's keep practical here please. The question is whether you can use
SATA RAID as a reasonable HD failure protection system or not.
Can a Raid1 on two HD, say less than 500Gb, be consider as a good
protection against HD failure? It still seems to be for me. (I
consider
