Could you two women take this private? Let me tell you how thoroughly pleased I am to see 40 emails of a pissing match concerning raid controllers in my inbox... Fact is...with decent hardware, the difference in speed and stability between hardware and software raid configurations in linux is negligible...Sure hardware is better...obviously! but software isn't that far behind on decent hardware... I'll wait for the flame, but I think I speak for everyone when I say your "discussion" has become a pointless pissing match. Later, Phil On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 21:16, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: > > > For 2 drive stuff, sure maybe. But we deal with 4/8/12/16 drive > > chassis, all on 3ware stuff. I don't think software raid can handle > > those situations. > > Linux_software_raid is *stable* > > > Especially not with remote web configurations, > > alerts (included, not build your own), etc... > > remote _web_ for critical storage ? command line is the best. > > > Software raid has it's place, and it's cheap, but the Original Poster > > asked for a hardware solution. The only solution I would consider is a > > 3ware solution. > > Do you believe that LiNUX_soft_raid is worse to be 'soft'? > > You are wrong. Why is 3w best ? > > Maybe if you buy a high end board, with a Xscale 600-700Mhz chip you will > get better performance. But low end boards with *100Mhz* , the most > ordinary boards out there, you are going to win _nothing_. Mainly because > linux_soft_raid is very well designed and current system processors/buses > and memory are very fast today. > > And remember, if you have HW raid boards implementations you must have > the *same board* _very near_ because they use a owner format(double expense) > > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list >
