On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Allan Metts wrote: > At 05:58 PM 12/7/2003, Hans wrote: > >. > >At first you must show that your RAID contoller ist supportet by Fedora. > > At 06:28 PM 12/7/2003, Seth wrote: > > >You don't mention what adaptec controller you have?? > > > This is an Adaptec AAA-133U2, apparently part of Adaptec's "Array 1000" > family. > > --*-- Anyone see any issues with this controller and Fedora support? > > --*-- It sounds like the general consensus is that, with five disks, I > should use RAID 0/1 with a hot spare -- provided I can live without 60% of > my disk space. If not, use RAID 5. Everyone agree? My experience of using RAID storage at work is that the performance difference between 5 and 0+1 is negligible - provided there is some degree of cache on your controller. 5 is a superior system in almost all regards to 0+1, in all practicale sense. However, a hotspare is a good idea. I would reccomend 4 drives on RAID 5, with a hotspare, giving you 3 drives of capacity. If you can't spare the capacity, don't use a hotspare. > --*-- In any case, I'm hearing that I shouldn't have to worry at all about > recovery. The array will simply chug along with a failed disk until I > replace it. And when I do, the replacement disk will assume its proper > role without much help from me (or special software) on boot-up. Am I > oversimplifying? It depends on the controller really - with RAID5, you will see a performance deficit running with a failed disk, and it's not reccomended as another disk failure will lead to data loss. -- Sam Barnett-Cormack Software Developer | Student of Physics & Maths UK Mirror Service (http://www.mirror.ac.uk) | Lancaster University
