Re: IDE expansion/RAID card
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 10:05:45AM -0700, nate wrote:
> > I just need more IDE interfaces, hardware RAID would be nice, but I don't
> > have to have it. I'm more concerned that each drive spins as fast as
> > possible while not slowing the other drives down. So, I would like each
> > drive to have its own interface... no master/slave stuff.
>
> my tests have shown that there is little to no difference
> between having a drive set as master/slave or have it on
> it's own controller. ATA100 or ATA133 drive can saturate the
That's not the real answer.
In RAID you can sustain a single drive failure and continue functioning.
A master/slave drive relationship guarantees a two drive failure. So if
you're in it for the redundancy at all, setting drives up on
master/slave with IDE is a recipe for disaster. Period.
--
chris jantzen kb7rnl =-> __O
Insert witty comment here. _`\<,_
http://www.maybe.net/ (*)/ (*)
Reply to: