FYI, I don't do IDE RAID (or IDE at all),
: but it's pretty awesome on SCSI.
The most awesome thing I had yet, is IDE AND SCSI:
IDE disks (BIG, fast cheap)
IDE-to-SCSI-bridging adaptor (one per IDE disk)
UW SCSI controller
Nice and quick, stable, haven't had to endure an actual drive
Hi there,
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Thomas Waldmann wrote:
The most awesome thing I had yet, is IDE AND SCSI:
IDE disks (BIG, fast cheap)
IDE-to-SCSI-bridging adaptor (one per IDE disk)
UW SCSI controller
What controller did you use for this? Is it with the 3Ware card? (I've
heard that the
kernel 2.2.15 with raid 0.90, debian potato and raidtools2.
can i build my raid now with hda3 and hdb3 and change the hard
disks later (so hdb will become hdc), or will this get me into big trouble ?
thanks for advice.
regards, andreas
Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
kernel 2.2.15 with raid 0.90, debian potato and raidtools2.
can i build my raid now with hda3 and hdb3 and change the hard
disks later (so hdb will become hdc), or will this get me into big trouble ?
Assuming you're using RAID autodetect, no problem at
the SCSI bus on one side and emulate one disk, and on the other do
hardware raid5 across 4 - 8 UDMA buses?
I ask because, while not normally somthing I would do, I need
to rig a large storage array in an evil environ. No way am I mounting
eight 1K$ each drives in a mobile
Anyone here worked with one of those devices that plug into
the SCSI bus on one side and emulate one disk, and on the other do
hardware raid5 across 4 - 8 UDMA buses?
I ask because, while not normally somthing I would do, I need
to rig a large storage array in an evil environ.
Hi,
I made the tests between ide and scsi soft raid and I do not understand
why scsi 2940u2w seems to be slower that ide on promise !?
thanks for your help
octave
PIII500/256/SCSI-2/RAID-1/2xIBM18Go7200
2.2.12
Dir Size BlkSz Thr# Read (CPU%) Write (CPU%) Seeks (CPU%)
- --
uhh- maybe cause you are compairing two completely different systems? try
using the same size and number of disks, same motherboard, same cpu, same
everything but the disks and controller, before you try to compair scsi to
ide...
allan
octave klaba [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi,
I made the
A fix(?) is found...
First, sorry for the horrendous English on the first post. Never try to
write a technical email right before a meeting. You may become a poster
child for the deterioration of our schooling system (a quote from the day I
sent this: "Jeez, and they actually graduated
A fix, possibly, is to look at using grub instead of lilo. Since it
doesn't write the kernel params into the MBR the way lilo does it may vary
well allow for longer strings passed to the kernel.
--
Brian D. Haymore
University of Utah
Center for High Performance Computing
155 South 1452 East RM
Some threads never die... I'm continuing one here from October...
Thanx for the great summary of how to get a system up and running, but I
have a question about the setup below.
I'm trying to get some 40GB Maxtors up using either Promise Ultra33's or
Ultra66 boards (33's in the logs below).
Hi there, just want to share some nasty experience (and what to do to solve
it).
Two weeks ago I installed a Raid-5 on two IDE and one SCSI partition under
SuSE 6.3 with the raid0145 patches.
The SCSI drive hangs of an adaptec controller. The drives were type fd and
autodetection of raid is on
.
By
Barney
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Raid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Januar 2000 02:37
An: Schackel, Fa. Integrata, ZRZ DA
Betreff: Re: AW: IDE RAID controller?
Hi Barney.
AFAIK there is no Linux support for this controller. Do you
know anyone who
has
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Thomas Waldmann wrote:
Cable length is not so much a pain as the number of cables. Of course with
scsi you want multiple channels anyway for performance, so the situation
is very similar to ide. A cable mess.
Well, it is at least only a half / third / ... of the
.
For some apps cost is really important, and software IDE RAID has a very low
price/Megabyte.
If the app doesn't need killer performance , then I think it is the best
solution.
It all depends on your minimum acceptable performance level.
I know my master/slave test setup couldn't
I do not know about performance, but if you build raid array using
masters and slaves on same channel, it will lack redudancy because
of if master dies, it will take slave with it ? So raid1 or raid5
using masters AND slaves is totally unwise?
I can only speak from experience. I have 3
Cable length is not so much a pain as the number of cables. Of course with
scsi you want multiple channels anyway for performance, so the situation
is very similar to ide. A cable mess.
Well, it is at least only a half / third / ... of the cable count of "tuned"
single-device-on-a-cable EIDE
Thomas Davis wrote:
JMy 4way IDE based, 2 channels (ie, master/slave, master/slave) built
using IBM 16gb Ultra33 drives in RAID0 are capable of about 25mb/sec
across the raid.
nice to hear :-) not a very big performance degradation
Adding a Promise 66 card, changing to all masters, got
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
john b said:
Performance is pretty good - these numbers are for a first generation
smartcan (spring '99)
these numbers are also useless since they are much too close to your ram size,
and bonnie only shows how fast your system runs bonnie :) a better benchmark
Brian Grossman wrote:
RZ
RZ Of course this is not the only thing the affects speed. Other issues that
RZ make our units fast is the PCI bus which is 133Mbs and DMA directly to
RZ drives.
It is however, still unclear whether it's safe to run reiserfs on a
raidzone. I have a question about
Benno Senoner wrote:
I was wondering how much IDE channels linux 2.2 can handle,
can it handle 8 channels ?
I think the limit with the later 2.2 kernel ide patches is 10 IDE channels.
I have run quite a bit with 4 Promise cards (8 channels),
plus the 2 onboard PIIX channels.
Jan Edler
NEC
[ Tuesday, January 11, 2000 ] Andy Poling wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
If you cut the cable
lengthwise (no, don't cut the wires) between wires (don't break the
insulation on the wires themselves, just the connecting plastic) you can
get your cables to be 1/4 the
Getting back to the discussion of Hardware vs. Software raid...
Can someone say *definitively* *where* the raid-5 code is being run on a
*current* Raidzone product? Originally, it was an "md" process running
on the system cpu. Currently I'm not so sure. The SmartCan *does* have
its own
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jan 11 21:44:29 2000
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
If you cut the cable
lengthwise (no, don't cut the wires) between wires (don't break the
insulation on the wires themselves, just the connecting plastic) you can
get your cables to be 1/4 the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 11-Jan-2000 James Manning wrote:
[ Tuesday, January 11, 2000 ] Andy Poling wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
If you cut the cable
lengthwise (no, don't cut the wires) between wires (don't break the
insulation on the wires
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, James Manning wrote:
If you cut the cable
lengthwise (no, don't cut the wires) between wires (etc.)
I don't know about IDE, but I'm pretty sure that's a big no-no for SCSI
cables. The alternating conductors in the ribbon cable are sig, gnd, sig,
gnd, sig, etc.
Title: RE: Ribbon Cabling (was Re: large ide raid system)
You may be thinking of differential SCSI which uses a balanced (and twisted) pair for each data and signal line. In the old days, there was only one flavor of differential, and it was popular at least on Hewlett-Packard 800 series
Jan Edler wrote:
It all depends on your minimum acceptable performance level.
I know my master/slave test setup couldn't keep up with fast ethernet
(10 MByte/s). I don't remember if it was 1 Mbyte/s or not.
Fastethernet is 12mb/sec, Ethernet is 1.2mb/sec.
My 4way IDE based, 2 channels
$horse='dead';
beat($horse);
[ Wednesday, January 12, 2000 ] Bohumil Chalupa wrote:
,,Termination`` means nothing else then a resistance at the end of the
cable (each pair) that is equivalent to the cable impedance. And the
impedance depends on the cable geometry (and material, of course).
James Manning wrote:
[ Tuesday, January 11, 2000 ] Thomas Davis wrote:
---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input--
--Random--
-Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block---
--Seeks---
MachineMB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec
Dan Hollis wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Jan Edler wrote:
Cable length is not so much a pain as the number of cables. Of course with
scsi you want multiple channels anyway for performance, so the situation
is very similar to ide. A cable mess.
There's a (relatively) nice way to get around
, etc).
Do you have any numbers handy ?
will the performance of master/slave setup be at least HALF of the
master-only setup.
For some apps cost is really important, and software IDE RAID has a very low
price/Megabyte.
If the app doesn't need killer performance , then I think it is the best
Thomas Davis wrote:
James Manning wrote:
Well, it's kind of on-topic thanks to this post...
Has anyone used the systems/racks/appliances/etc from raidzone.com?
If you believe their site, it certainly looks like a good possibility.
Yes.
It's pricey. Not much cheaper that SCSI
SCSI works quite well with many devices connected to the same cable. The PCI bus
turns out to be the bottleneck with the faster scsi modes, so it doesn't matter
how many channels you have. If performance was the issue, but the original poster
wasn't interested in performance, multiple channels
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
If you cut the cable
lengthwise (no, don't cut the wires) between wires (don't break the
insulation on the wires themselves, just the connecting plastic) you can
get your cables to be 1/4 the normal width (up until you get to the
connector).
I
John Burton wrote:
Thomas Davis wrote:
James Manning wrote:
Well, it's kind of on-topic thanks to this post...
Has anyone used the systems/racks/appliances/etc from raidzone.com?
If you believe their site, it certainly looks like a good possibility.
Yes.
It's
), or about the RAID code, except that they
work.
For some apps cost is really important, and software IDE RAID has a very low
price/Megabyte.
If the app doesn't need killer performance , then I think it is the best
solution.
It's a very good solution for a small number of disks, where you
, and software IDE RAID has a very low
price/Megabyte.
If the app doesn't need killer performance , then I think it is the best
solution.
It all depends on your minimum acceptable performance level.
I know my master/slave test setup couldn't keep up with fast ethernet
(10 MByte/s). I don't
[ Tuesday, January 11, 2000 ] John Burton wrote:
Performance is pretty good - these numbers are for a first generation
smartcan (spring '99)
Could you re-run the raidzone and softraid with a size of 512MB or larger?
Could you run the tiobench.pl from http://www.iki.fi/miku/tiotest
(after
[ Sunday, January 9, 2000 ] Franc Carter wrote:
I am planning to set up a large ide raid5 system. From reading the
archives of the list it looks like the way to go is with promise
ultra66 cards, making sure that I have good cables. I am hopeing
to get a minimum of 8 drives into a machine. My
Franc Carter wrote:
I am planning to set up a large ide raid5 system. From reading the
archives of the list it looks like the way to go is with promise
ultra66 cards, making sure that I have good cables. I am hopeing
to get a minimum of 8 drives into a machine. My current plan is for
the
From my experience, it works fairly well, but there are some constraints:
- Performance is really horrible if you use IDE slaves.
Even though you say you aren't performance-sensitive, I'd
recommend against it if possible.
- Thus, to get 8 drives in a machine, you not only need
On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 12:49:29PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Jan Edler wrote:
- Performance is really horrible if you use IDE slaves.
Even though you say you aren't performance-sensitive, I'd
recommend against it if possible.
My tests indicate UDMA performs
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Jan Edler wrote:
- Performance is really horrible if you use IDE slaves.
Even though you say you aren't performance-sensitive, I'd
recommend against it if possible.
My tests indicate UDMA performs favorably with ultrascsi, at about 1/6 the
cost. Cost is often a big
On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 02:03:14AM -0500, James Manning wrote:
Has anyone used the systems/racks/appliances/etc from raidzone.com?
If you believe their site, it certainly looks like a good possibility.
The raidzone stuff works, and the packaging is nice.
They provide much more scalability than
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Jan Edler wrote:
My tests indicate UDMA performs favorably with ultrascsi, at about 1/6 the
cost. Cost is often a big factor.
I wasn't advising against IDE, only against the use of slaves.
Here we agree :D 1 device per channel. (When will any vendors implement
IDE
James Manning wrote:
Well, it's kind of on-topic thanks to this post...
Has anyone used the systems/racks/appliances/etc from raidzone.com?
If you believe their site, it certainly looks like a good possibility.
Yes.
It's pricey. Not much cheaper that SCSI chassis. You only save money
I am planning to set up a large ide raid5 system. From reading the
archives of the list it looks like the way to go is with promise
ultra66 cards, making sure that I have good cables. I am hopeing
to get a minimum of 8 drives into a machine. My current plan is for
the following config:-
37gig
Hi,
how about Promise Raid 0,1 Controller.
Have a look @ http://www.promise.com/Products/products.htm#ideraid
By, Barney
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Raid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. Januar 2000 04:03
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: IDE RAID controller
Raid wrote:
Does anyone know of an ATA-66 IDE RAID controller for Linux? I have seen
the Arco product at http://www.arcoide.com/dupli-pci.htm but it is only
UDMA/33.
You might look at the RaidZone product line (http://www.raidzone.com)
although it might be more than what you're looking
Does anyone know of an ATA-66 IDE RAID controller for Linux? I have seen
the Arco product at http://www.arcoide.com/dupli-pci.htm but it is only
UDMA/33.
Brad
In case someone else here wants to build a larger IDE software raid5 in the near
future, here is what works for me very well right now:
- single processor P3
- 4 or more IBM IDE drives (I use 4)
- linux 2.2.13pre15 (but probably better: 2.2.13final)
- the raid 2.2.11 patch (just press enter a
Hi all,
o.k. I know the advantages of software RAID. But wouldn't it be a viable
option to use two cheap IDE drives with a hardware RAID controller for the
OS and put the data on a fast RAID 5 SW RAID?
I've read about an IDE RAID 1 Controller (Araid99-300, www.top101usa.com)
that is working
Hi,
I'm trying to do something that seems to have needed a lot more pizza
than anything I've tried before, am I missing something?
Using a new Promise ATA66 card I'm trying to build a fast IDE based
array. I've had to compile a development kernel (2.3.13) to get my
redhat based linux to
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Mark Hahn wrote:
i can buy the promise ide/66 and Abit HotRod66(HPT366 chipset)
udma66 is not useful over udma33. however, both are supported;
I suspect the promise works better.
both are not really supported
Both
i have here 4 * 25GB ibm disks
and an asus p2b-d board with 2* p2-450
now i read i should only use master devices
so i should buy an extra ide controller
i can buy the promise ide/66 and Abit HotRod66(HPT366 chipset)
i looked in the 2.2.10 kernel, but saw no support for them
in the 2.3.12
SCSI-UW(160) is out.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of D. Carlos
Knowlton
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 11:57 AM
To: Linux-Raid
Subject: U-DMA-66 IDE / RAID
Hey Guys,
I am building a server that I want to use Linux RAID
am my homecomputer; beam myself into
the future." --Kraftwerk, 1981
--
From: Michael Tibor[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 11:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: U-DMA-66 IDE / RAID
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Stanley, Je
t: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 2:56 PM
To: Linux-Raid
Subject: U-DMA-66 IDE / RAID
Hey Guys,
I am building a server that I want to use Linux RAID on. I've heard
that
the new IDE spec "U-DMA-66" is supposed to be an extremely fast
technology.
(is that 66 MHz, or 66M
there is an article at wickedpc
(http://www.wickedpc.com/faqs/harddrivetweaking/B) that talks about
the new IBM 22GB Drive ATA-66. Basically ATA-66 doesn't add that much in
speed (like 8%), but it reduces CPU overhead alot. So you shoudl be
rocking with 3 or 4 of those 22GB beasts in a RAID5.
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Stanley, Jeremy wrote:
I believe it is 66MBps per channel, but keep in mind that Ultra2 SCSI
runs 80MBps per device and has been around for a couple of years.
Ultra3 is supposed to run around 160MBps. My U2/5-drive RAID0 has a
"theoretical" bandwidth of 400MBps
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Michael Tibor wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Stanley, Jeremy wrote:
I believe it is 66MBps per channel, but keep in mind that Ultra2 SCSI
runs 80MBps per device and has been around for a couple of years.
Ultra3 is supposed to run around 160MBps. My U2/5-drive RAID0
62 matches
Mail list logo
