Re: striping, etc.
> > They will go on a machine with 3 200m ide drives, which will be a poor-man's
> > server. My current thinking is to mount / on the first controller, and
> > use the other pair as /usr on the second interface. /usr will be NFS
> > exported. Or would I be better off putting the two /usr drives on
> > separate controllers?
>
> I'd think it was better to mount them across separate controllers. With
> seperate control and data lines, the kernel can issue two simultaneous
> requests and get data from both at the same time. My understanding with
> IDE (and EIDE) is that a single controller can only access a single
> drive at a time and must wait for that request to finish before issuing
> another.
yes; that's the hitch with ide. On the other hand, we don't have spare
scsis lying around :)
The reason i'm hesitating to put them on separate controllers is that /
is also on the first controller. Everything that gets nfs exported will
come off /usr, and my concern is that massive hits to the portion that
was slaved could leave / unaccesable to the host.
> SCSI is a more sophisticated in that it allows a request to be issued
> and then the bus to idle (for more requests or other data) until the
> drive finishes processing the request and can blast back the data.
> This is why SCSI is much better than EIDE when dealing with more than one
> drive. (At least, this is my understanding... Somebody please correct
> me if I'm wrong.)
yes; exactly. I just wish we had scsis. Of coure, if this whole thing
works, we may be able to get one . . .
rick
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: