[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 07:10:53AM -0500, Tim Kelley wrote:
On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 12:01:43AM +0100, Joao Clemente wrote:
Which are the tradeoffs of hard vs software raid1? What happens/How do
we proceed if 1 disk fails (how do we know it, how do we replace/resync
them?)
S
On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 07:10:53AM -0500, Tim Kelley wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 12:01:43AM +0100, Joao Clemente wrote:
> > Which are the tradeoffs of hard vs software raid1? What happens/How do
> > we proceed if 1 disk fails (how do we know it, how do we replace/resync
> > them?)
>
> Softwar
On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 00:49 +0800, Paolo Alexis Falcone wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 15:22:17 +0100, Frank Gevaerts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 09:28:32AM +0800, Paolo Alexis Falcone wrote:
[snip]
> On an environment that's heavy on writes, RAID 5's overhead doesn't
> real
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 15:22:17 +0100, Frank Gevaerts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 09:28:32AM +0800, Paolo Alexis Falcone wrote:
> > RAID 5 alleviates this by using parity information stored across the
> > disks - now it takes more than 1 disk failure for RAID 5 to fail.
>
> Ho
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 09:28:32AM +0800, Paolo Alexis Falcone wrote:
>
> Here's the case here - RAID 1 indeed does not mirror physical disk
> errors (else there's no real point in using RAID at all). However,
> should there be errors in the disks during reconstruction of the RAID
> array, RAID 1
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:31:03 +, Joao Clemente <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Paolo, Alvin, Pigeon, Ron & Tim, thanks for all the replies...
>
> Paolo Alexis Falcone wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >>Which are the tradeoffs of hard vs software raid1? What happens/How do
> >>we proceed if 1 disk fails (ho
On Oct 30 2004, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Sat, 2004-10-30 at 00:33 -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:
> but people still think usb hd is what they want geez...
> ( it's their $$$ for time and hw )
That's why I voted with my $$$ for a firewire enclosure
That's what I did also: motivated by the good performanc
> >you could try higher RAID levels (RAID 5) for data integrity. RAID 1
> >will only mirror disks - and that would also mean should there be
> >errors in one disk it gets propagated to the mirror as well.
Indeed this is false. It also shows a complete lack of understanding the
very basic principl
Hi Paolo, Alvin, Pigeon, Ron & Tim, thanks for all the replies...
Paolo Alexis Falcone wrote:
[snip]
Which are the tradeoffs of hard vs software raid1? What happens/How do
we proceed if 1 disk fails (how do we know it, how do we replace/resync
them?)
[snip]
Do note though that RAID 1 won't help yo
On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 12:01:43AM +0100, Joao Clemente wrote:
> Hi.
> For the first time I'm gonna setup a server with SCSI disks (until now
> I've done it only with IDE - regular ATA or SATA)
>
> I'm getting a completly new server (P4 3Ghz, Dual-Channel DDR 400, MB
> with intel chipset) and, w
>
> hi ya
>
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Joao Clemente wrote:
>
> > I'm getting a completly new server (P4 3Ghz, Dual-Channel DDR 400, MB
> > with intel chipset) and, while I have a good ideia on these components,
> > I would like to setup a RAID-1 system with SCSI disks...
>
> there is zero point ot se
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > and hopefully "security" is a non issue, when one is allowing usb
> > disks to be plugged in at any time
>
> That's goes for any external JBOD drive.
lot harder to hide a disk ... in ones shirt pocket and walk out :-)
- cell phones with camer
On Sat, 2004-10-30 at 00:33 -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > > i think firewire had its day and its dying ... usb is taking over
> >
> > Blech. USB2 HDDs are *SLOW*.
>
> yup... almost as fast as floppies .. :-)
>
> but people still think usb hd is what th
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > i think firewire had its day and its dying ... usb is taking over
>
> Blech. USB2 HDDs are *SLOW*.
yup... almost as fast as floppies .. :-)
but people still think usb hd is what they want geez...
( it's their $$$ for time and hw )
and hopefull
On Sat, 2004-10-30 at 00:18 -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:
> hi ya ron
>
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
[snip]
> > FireWire800 will be a big step in the right direction, since I
> > can already get 1/2 of IDE speeds with my FW400 drive (an "old"
> > Maxtor 60GB drive).
>
> i think firewire
hi ya ron
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Sounds like user error to me.
yes... and/or more likely, initial system config errors ..
> Never said I was the expert. Our SysAdmins are the experts.
:-)
> And they have to swap drives out of running systems on a reasonably
> frequent b
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 21:25 -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:
> hi ya ron
>
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > I've been using h/w RAID for 10 years, in everything from 60GB
> > (using scads of 4GB devices) to 15TB SANs using 147GB devices,
> > and have *never* *ever* seen what you suggest.
>
hi ya ron
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Ron Johnson wrote:
> I've been using h/w RAID for 10 years, in everything from 60GB
> (using scads of 4GB devices) to 15TB SANs using 147GB devices,
> and have *never* *ever* seen what you suggest.
>
> I would, literally, fall over dead if I ever saw that happen
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 16:48 -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:
> hi ya
>
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Joao Clemente wrote:
>
[snip]
> problem with raid1 ( aka mirror )
> - if one disk goes bad, the other disk will copy that bad info
> onto the good disk the whole point of mirror, both disk
>
On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 12:01:43AM +0100, Joao Clemente wrote:
> Hi.
> For the first time I'm gonna setup a server with SCSI disks (until now
> I've done it only with IDE - regular ATA or SATA)
>
> I'm getting a completly new server (P4 3Ghz, Dual-Channel DDR 400, MB
> with intel chipset) and, w
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 00:01:43 +0100, Joao Clemente <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi.
> For the first time I'm gonna setup a server with SCSI disks (until now
> I've done it only with IDE - regular ATA or SATA)
>
> I'm getting a completly new server (P4 3Ghz, Dual-Channel DDR 400, MB
> with intel chi
hi ya
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Joao Clemente wrote:
>
> ?!? What if a drive fails while on those 12h/day where people are
> actually using them? This will be a fileserver where documents are
> constantly changed/added/removed during the work hours!
have 2 file servers ...
- your fans is more l
Hi Alvin, thanks for the quick reply. Some comments and questions, tough:
Alvin Oga wrote:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Joao Clemente wrote:
I'm getting a completly new server (P4 3Ghz, Dual-Channel DDR 400, MB
with intel chipset) and, while I have a good ideia on these components,
I would like to setup
hi ya
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Joao Clemente wrote:
> I'm getting a completly new server (P4 3Ghz, Dual-Channel DDR 400, MB
> with intel chipset) and, while I have a good ideia on these components,
> I would like to setup a RAID-1 system with SCSI disks...
there is zero point ot setting up raid-1
Hi.
For the first time I'm gonna setup a server with SCSI disks (until now
I've done it only with IDE - regular ATA or SATA)
I'm getting a completly new server (P4 3Ghz, Dual-Channel DDR 400, MB
with intel chipset) and, while I have a good ideia on these components,
I would like to setup a RAID
25 matches
Mail list logo
