Re: Windows 2003 Raid controller question
- From: "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 22:28:07 -0700
A standalone hardware RAID controller is always preferred over software RAID. It's faster, more flexible, and doesn't require any work from the OS. Now a RAID controller built in to your mobo? I'm less sanguine about them, having had significant problems with some.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"tuktuk" <tuktuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:28020C2C-18A1-407E-8C15-CF17F6A78D85@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
How reliable is Windows 2003 Raid? I have configured raid 1 using Windows
2003 raid on few servers and they have been working fine but read on this
news group not to use software raid. I had problem with one server where a
disk on raid 1 died and all I did was replaced that disk and configured raid
1 again, so thought its great... should I change to hardware raid or just
leave them as they are. the purpose of raid 1 is if 1 drive dies other should
keep you going. In fact I have problem with 1 hardware raid on intel mother
board, just wouldn't let me add another drive, crashing with blue screen.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Windows 2003 Raid controller question
- From: tuktuk
- Re: Windows 2003 Raid controller question
- References:
- Windows 2003 Raid controller question
- From: tuktuk
- Windows 2003 Raid controller question
- Prev by Date: Windows 2003 Raid controller question
- Next by Date: Re: Netopia 3347NWG with Remote Desktop and Remote Web Workplace
- Previous by thread: Windows 2003 Raid controller question
- Next by thread: Re: Windows 2003 Raid controller question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|