Hi > > > My thinking is that I should use one IDE boot/root non raid > > > disk, and three SATA drives for the raid. > > > > Is there a good reason for that? > > > > I would be thinking to make a small boot partition (100M or less) > > and use the initrd to establish the drivers and get the RAID running. > > Then put a copy of the boot partition onto every drive so that the > > partition tables are the same and so you will always be able to > > boot (and put grub on every drive too). > > > > Then you can have your entire system running on RAID and use all > > 4 drives in a symmetric manner. > > Sounds a good plan. I was only following the recipe in the article; three > disks with raid 5. > > My object is not speed, but a bit more reliability. Disk failure seems to be > more > prevalent these days. > > Daniel Philips gave a very interesting talk about his raid 3.5 at linux conf. > Unfortunately > it doesn't have the rebuild code. > > >From what I can glean, either of the mboards I mentioned should be able > to do what I want.
in particular > My object is not speed, but a bit more reliability. Disk failure seems to > be more prevalent these days. See http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf To say why you will get disk failures if you put more than 1 disk in a box! The WD raptors are 'SCSI disks' with a SATA interface (and 5 year warranty) Hmmm, food for thought for those wanting reliability James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
