Re: Install and RAID
Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
> Yeah right, I'm going to build a high performance server on IDE
> <snicker>
>
It is an undisputable fact that IDE gives better performance per $ than
SCSI.
You realise the speed of a drive is primarily dependent on its RPM's not
its interface (or its pricetag).
> > If you have the cash to keep spare HW RAID controllers onsite, then you've
> > probably got the cash to setup duplicate servers. If you have duplicate
> > servers, you don't need RAID because you already have overall system layer
> > redundancy, so you don't need RAID. A solution in search of a problem.
>
> This does not follow. If I've got the money to keep a $1000 raid card
> as a spare I've got the money to keep a $5000 server on the network
> (which I may or may not own; more expenses), and I've got to keep the
> data synced? Yi.
>
Distributed computing will always be better than trying to cram all the
power into one machine.
Throwing money at a problem to avoid a technical solution demonstrates
poor managment and engineering skills.
> > The only attempts to explain why HW RAID is better revolve around nonsense
> > like "its not important unless you spend extra money" or something.
>
> Uh huh ... you run a lot of raid 5?
>
Software raid is faster than hardware raid, software raid offloads the
proccessing to the CPU, whereas hardware raid does it onboard which is
why hardware raid is slower and more expensive.
Ever seen a hardware raid card with as much power as a cpu ?
If you worried about overloading you system get a MP mobo.
Most of these opinions i gathered when i was on the linux-raid mailing
list, you might want to checkout the mail archive.
Glenn
Reply to: