Re: [SLE] Which motherboard/RAID controller for home file-server?
You should only use 1 drive per IDE channel, set up as master. The way IDE is designed, a broken slave might well bring the whole channel down. You also don't want to use different interface standards / speeds on the same channel, as the channel (bus) will autonegotiate to the highest (hopefully) common standard / speed. DVD:s and CD-ROM:s are typically slower than hard drives. So, only one drive per channel, CD / DVD on a separate channel and if you want maximum security, even spread your drives across two or more IDE / SATA controllers. Cheers /Niclas
From: Pieter Hulshoff
To: John Andersen CC: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] Which motherboard/RAID controller for home file-server? Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:18:22 +0200 On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 01:08:38AM -0800, John Andersen wrote:
On Monday 02 August 2004 03:48 am, Louis Richards wrote:
I would buy two additional IDE cards so each drive is by itself on a channel. I always mirror boot and swap. The rest can be RAID 5.
Actually that's not totally necessary, as long as two drives in the SAME Array do not share a controller.
So if he was planning two arrays anyway, he could use all of the Masters in one array, and all the slaves in the other array.
(make sure the newer/larger/faster disks are masters and older/smaller/slower disks are slaves.
The current idea is as follows (using a HPT 454 PCI card, 4 channels, 8 devices):
M S IDE1 OS DVD IDE2 MD0 HPT1 MD0 HPT2 MD0 HPT3 MD0 HPT4 MD0
leaving 5 slave ports for a later extention (where I will most likely switch the old array to the slaves, and place the newer (bigger) drives to the masters). Comments?
Regards,
Pieter Hulshoff
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
_________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:31:07AM +0200, Niclas Arndt wrote:
You should only use 1 drive per IDE channel, set up as master. The way IDE is designed, a broken slave might well bring the whole channel down.
Isn't that the way I described it? Or are you talking about the extention scenario where I want to use 2 arrays?
You also don't want to use different interface standards / speeds on the same channel, as the channel (bus) will autonegotiate to the highest (hopefully) common standard / speed. DVD:s and CD-ROM:s are typically slower than hard drives.
That's why I put the DVD and Operating System disk on one channel, and only use the masters of all other channels for my RAID-5 array. My OS disk doesn't need a lot of speed, and the DVD drive is mostly for installation purposes. Regards, Pieter Hulshoff
On Tuesday 03 August 2004 01:31 am, Niclas Arndt wrote:
You should only use 1 drive per IDE channel, set up as master. The way IDE is designed, a broken slave might well bring the whole channel down.
Highly unlikely. Just as likely that a broken master would do in the channel, but thousands of years of (collective) service with ide drives indicate this is extremely rare. Having that broken slave is going to take something down anyway. The prohibition against having two drives on the same controller channel for software raid is based _solely_ on performance, because the channel can talk to one drive at a time. As far as I know you are the only person who has made any claim that one-drive per channel offers any protection against failing drives. Care to cite a reference? But since the OP stated he was using this for movie storage, and the demands there-of are not sufficient to saturate even the slowest IDE hard drive bandwidth, building two arrays, one of all slaves and the other of all masters is quite viable. The only slow operations would then be copying a movie from one array to the other, and even that would be no slower than copying from master to slave in a two drive machine with no raid. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
participants (3)
-
John Andersen
-
Niclas Arndt
-
Pieter Hulshoff