Re: Install and RAID
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 10:06:53AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 05:36:54PM -0500, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > This is a ridiculous discussion, IMHO. Anyone who is serious about
> > protecting their data buys a hardware RAID controller. Software RAID is a
> > hack, reserved for those few situations where someone wants to have raid but
> > is unwilling to shell out the few hundred dollars for a decent controller --
> > and you're saying we should make this the standard way of doing things?
> > Sorry, but I can't agree with that.
>
> Nothing like proof by assertion. FYI, your performance is likely to
> better with SW raid, it's easier to get multiple redundant data paths
> with SW raid, and your "few hundred dollar" HW raid solution is likely a
> POS by comparison. SW raid is certainly a viable contender until you get
> into the market of FC raid controllers on a fabric with failover data
> paths, mirrored controllers & memory, etc.--which cost a *lot* more than
> a few hundred dollars.
But you really still haven't addressed my point. Why are people so caught up
with "multiple redundant data paths"? My point is, the number of
installations that both a) actually need this and b) don't have the money for
a "real" solution (such as EMC, NetApp, etc.) is very small compared to the
total number of debian installations, and that is why we shouldn't make it the
default.
Do you have issue with that?
FYI, I have used many a $3-500 raid card over the years, and they have always
given me decent performance with a minimum of hassle. I'm sorry but I cannot
say the same about the md installations I've had to admin.
There are some offerings from Sun and Veritas that I would consider "decent",
in terms of software raid, but IMHO the Linux kernel raid driver doesn't
really compare to those (yet). In any case, I believe it would be an
incredibly stupid move to make this the default on Debian, in order to make
things convenient for a very small minority.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <adam@debian.org> <adam@flounder.net>
Reply to: