Hello,
I've got a 4.4 box that i'd like to implement software raid on. Does
anyone have any experiences with this?
Thanks.
Dave.
Dave spake the following on 3/27/2007 3:13 PM:> Hello, > I've got a 4.4 box that i'd like to implement software raid on. Does > anyone have any experiences with this? > Thanks. > Dave.I have used software raid many times, and still use it, although on a more limited basis. It is a very mature technology, and IMHO it is better than all of the fakeraid controllers I have ever seen. -- MailScanner is like deodorant... You hope everybody uses it, and you notice quickly if they don't!!!!
Hi, Software RAID works well for me. I have three CentOS systems running low-cost IDE RAID-1 configurations. I have had a drive fail in a RAID-1 configuration and things ran along just fine until I got the spare replaced. I didn't realize a drive had failed until I read my email mid-morning and there was a message from the monitor. :-) There are a lot of tutorials and help out there on this topic for you. Thanks, Jim Dave wrote:> Hello, > I've got a 4.4 box that i'd like to implement software raid on. > Does anyone have any experiences with this? > Thanks. > Dave. > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Dave wrote:> Hello, > I've got a 4.4 box that i'd like to implement software raid on. > Does anyone have any experiences with this? > Thanks. > Dave.I've been using software RAID with Linux on and off since 1998-ish and it has *never* bitten me in the behind. That said, the 3Ware controllers are so cheap these days I just find it easier to buy one of those and let the card do all the heavy lifting so I don't have to worry about all the software RAIDisms. Cheers,
Dave, I've been running softraid on my personal server for over a year now. My current config is five 250g sata drives. One catch I ran into was online growth of the array. I needed to compile a later kernel version as well as the mdadm tool. So for that reason, I wouldn't recommend soft-raid5 in a production environment. However, I've had no problems so far, and have expanded my storage array several times now. (LVM2 makes it super easy) I have soft-raid1 running on 'untouched' production servers, without issue. Gordon On 3/27/07, Dave <dmehler26 at woh.rr.com> wrote:> Hello, > I've got a 4.4 box that i'd like to implement software raid on. Does > anyone have any experiences with this? > Thanks. > Dave. > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >
Dave wrote:> Hello, > I've got a 4.4 box that i'd like to implement software raid on. Does > anyone have any experiences with this? > Thanks. > Dave.I'm going to be setting up a machine at home, for keeping backup copies of my data & software. For various reasons (work being one) the "server" is going to be a dual boot W2K/Linux machine, and I'll have MacOSX, W2K, and Linux clients accessing this over the network. I'll probably just fire up NFS for this. I have a 60GB drive, and 2 80GB drives for it. I'll be adding in a Rosewill RC-200 PCI ATA/133 card for the 80GB drives. It says it does RAID, but that is probably one of those fake-RAID deals. Anybody use this card? Since it's likely not real RAID, my plan is to have on 80GB drive formatted as ext3, then use rsync daily to back that up to the other 80GB drive. Then I can use something like EXT2 IFS (from fs-driver.org) in W2K if/when I need to access the backup drives. I thought about a software RAID1 in Linux ext3 format, but the EXT2IFS driver probably wouldn't be able to read that, right? Then, to make things interesting, I have an external 300GB drive with NTFS format. This contains the portable copy of the data store. :) Not too much of an issue, since Linux can read NTFS fine. Or am I wrong here? Should I flip this to Ext3, considering my other thoughts on this setup? -- --- David Woyciesjes
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:> RAID5/6 on > systems backed up to tape (oops, I seem to be crossing threads) > fulfills those requirements.No, you're not crossing threads, you're crossing tapes! :) What's wrong with NV anyway?? Mark