On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 08:16:42 -0500, Bill Roberts wrote:
> The Raptors are expensive because of the speed, 10,000 rpm vs. 7,200
> rpm. They are supposed to be built more ruggedly, an attempt by Western
> Digital to steal some of high profit SCSI market.
The WD Raptors were made for that market, th
On 13:04 Fri 20 Jan , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Based on your post to my other thread I've been looking at the drives you
> mentioned. What do you know about the WD Caviar drives? They are cheaper
> than the Raptors.
>
> >
I try to avoid Western Digital in general, except for the Raptors
ts.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] SATA Hardware vs Software RAID
>
>
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
O 13:33 Thu 19 Jan , Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
> I'm moving from SCSI to SATA and was wondering if anyone has any experience
> with the speed of software RAID vs hardware RAID. I'm currently using
> hardware RAID.
>
I've have two Western Digital Raptor WD740GD 74GB 10,000 RPM 8MB Cache
Serial
I am running it on the ICH6 software raid just for clarification.
From: "Christopher Mosher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] SATA Hardware vs Software RAID
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:3
o.org
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] SATA Hardware vs Software RAID
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:02:42 +0100
John Jolet wrote:
> I personally prefer hardware raid, because if you go
> software raid, I don't believe your /boot partition can exist on the
> raid. so ea
On Jan 19, 2006, at 3:02 PM, Jarry wrote:
John Jolet wrote:
I personally prefer hardware raid, because if you go
software raid, I don't believe your /boot partition can exist on the
raid. so each drive would have to have a /boot partitionor has
that need been alleviated?
Not true. O
John Jolet wrote:
> I personally prefer hardware raid, because if you go
> software raid, I don't believe your /boot partition can exist on the
> raid. so each drive would have to have a /boot partitionor has
> that need been alleviated?
Not true. Of course /boot can be on raid too, but i
On Jan 19, 2006, at 2:23 PM, kashani wrote:
Mike Williams wrote:
Yesterday an IBM ServeRAID decided to mark it's 3 SCSI disks as
defunct when they are all in fact perfectly fine, giving me a 4am
finish this morning after the major hassle of rebuilding, so I'm
now heavily biased against ha
Mike Williams wrote:
Yesterday an IBM ServeRAID decided to mark it's 3 SCSI disks as defunct when
they are all in fact perfectly fine, giving me a 4am finish this morning
after the major hassle of rebuilding, so I'm now heavily biased against
hardware RAID, when I know software RAID is fully ca
Thanks for the in-the-field experience. My feeling was as you indicated that
CPUs are cheap and powerful so they can do the work. However, I like to hear
from others who have been there!
On Thursday January 19 2006 14:39, Mike Williams wrote:
> On Thursday 19 January 2006 18:33, Brett I. Holco
On Thursday 19 January 2006 18:33, Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
> I'm moving from SCSI to SATA and was wondering if anyone has any experience
> with the speed of software RAID vs hardware RAID. I'm currently using
> hardware RAID.
Yesterday an IBM ServeRAID decided to mark it's 3 SCSI disks as defunct
12 matches
Mail list logo
