> Dave Ewart wrote: > > Although it's worth pointing out that software RAID-*1* (one of the > > options under consideration) has almost no CPU overhead, and is often a > > good low-cost option. > > > > Part of your decision must rest on what exactly the machine will be > > doing. Different RAID setups are best suited for different usage > > patterns, e.g. RAID-5 is often a good general-purpose storage server > > option, RAID-10 is usually recommended for database servers, etc.
On 30.11.06 17:20, Johannes Wiedersich wrote: > It's a 'general purpose' data server for a group of ca. 20 people, > serving linux-homes and as a samba domain controller where all the data go. > > At the moment we have two servers for different kind of data, but the > idea is to have just one server with all data. The hardware has > integrated Raid-1, Raid 5 costs extra. > > My concern is that we are going to have only one server. So if there was > a hardware problem, with software raid I could just temporarily move the > disks to an ordinary workstation and serve the data from there. With > hardware raid, I suppose I would have to wait for replacement parts. In such case, you should search for your RAID documentation, if it's real HW RAID at all. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. On the other hand, you have different fingers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
