Re: SATA vs. SCSI, RAID?
From: root (postmaster_at_buchanangc.com)
Date: 06/23/04
- Next message: Frank McCallister: "Re: 2003 OS Server Hard drive install limit."
- Previous message: N. Hughes: "Re: POP3 Connector Errors"
- In reply to: Frank McCallister: "Re: SATA vs. SCSI, RAID?"
- Next in thread: Henry Craven: "Re: SATA vs. SCSI, RAID?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:46:33 -0700
"Frank McCallister" <anonymous> wrote in message
news:epxDTIXWEHA.2840@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Never had any problems with Hardware Raid I couldn't fix! I have seen
enough
> horror stories on software Raid not booting though to where I won't try it
> to find out those first two answers;-}
No one compotent has trouble booting MS's intrinsic SW RAID 1.
> Frank
> "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@your.nellie> wrote in message
> news:%23NZCazWWEHA.712@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Hi Frank,
> >
> > Ever seen software SCSI based RAID1 resync on restart for no apparent
> > reason?
> > Ever seen services fail at such a time due to timing issues during
the
> > restart/rebuild?
> > Ever seen the same problem on hardware based systems?
> >
> > If your answers are yes, yes, no, your experience is similar to mine.
> >
> > "Frank McCallister" <anonymous> wrote in message
> > news:OcnTrFUWEHA.1952@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >> Hi Root
> >>
> >> Well I am not Susan so I can't claim Gender preference but if you don't
> >> understand why Hardware Raid isn't safer then we just have to "Agree to
> >> Disagree" cause we went to different schools!!!
> >>
> >> Frank
> >> "root" <postmaster@buchanangc.com> wrote in message
> >> news:e8tPPsNWEHA.1760@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> >
> >> > "Frank McCallister" <anonymous> wrote in message
> >> > news:%23Je8OkNWEHA.3024@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> >> Hi root
> >> >>
> >> >> Mark and I have disagreements from time to time but he is Right on
on
> >> >> this
> >> >> one!! Software Raid is useless
> >> >
> >> > You are flat wrong about that SW RAID 1. MS's SW RAID 1 is just fine
> > and
> >> > HW
> >> > RAID 1 wont be any faster.
> >> >
> >> >>and Raid 5 is superior to Raid 1 if in your
> >> >> Budget.
> >> >
> >> > And yes as I've said several times RAID 5 is usually the appropriate
> >> > solution for other than smaller configurations. That's HW RAID 5.
> >> >
> >> > If a single HD like a 80GB SATA Raptor will run your server then get
> >> > two
> >> > and
> >> > mirror them(RAID 1) using MS's SW RAID 1. RAID 5 serves no need here
> > and
> >> > a
> >> > fancy HW RAID 1 card also contributes little but cost.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
- Next message: Frank McCallister: "Re: 2003 OS Server Hard drive install limit."
- Previous message: N. Hughes: "Re: POP3 Connector Errors"
- In reply to: Frank McCallister: "Re: SATA vs. SCSI, RAID?"
- Next in thread: Henry Craven: "Re: SATA vs. SCSI, RAID?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
