Allan Metts wrote: > This is an Adaptec AAA-133U2, apparently part of Adaptec's "Array 1000" > family. > > --*-- Anyone see any issues with this controller and Fedora support? is it an aacraid board ? > --*-- 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? raid 10 or 01 = 1/2 of total storage raid 5 = total_storage - 1_disk but raid 5 only supports a failure in *one* disk, and the rebuild of the raid is _very_ slow. There is big degradation if one disk is broken. Raid 10 can supports 2 failures in differents set of raid_1 and degradation with 1 disk bad is less than raid5. IMO with this board you are going to get a low performance. It would be better to try Linux_soft_raid 10 instead 01 of the board, plus 1 disk as hot spare. But if you prefer the native HW raid, be sure that firmware of the board is the *latest* > --*-- 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? if you put hot spare disks, then answer is yes. > Can anyone point me to a basic RAID monitoring / diagnostic tool that > would support this controller on Fedora? This is a single, > highly-visible server -- and my main interest is in actually using (not > administering) this machine -- so nothing fancy or complicated is needed. if it is a _aacraid_ board Adaptec has a monitor tool -> http://linux.adaptec.com or http://domsch.com/linux/#aacraid
