Re(2): Benchmarking hardware RAID vs. Linux kernel software RAID
Posted by: Anonymous
[ip: 141.123.223.100]
on July 15, 2008 09:43 PM
1) The main idea was that you have to spend extra money for the spare controller or you are at risk.
Exactly. If you're not going to get a card from a known, reliable vendor, then you need to buy two. If you buy from a known, reliable vendor, they'll be around for the warranty period to ensure you can get a replacement. Regardless, you should get two anyway because you don't want those servers to be down while you wait for a replacement to be shipped.
2) About a vendor and 8-9 years. That is not reliable anyway.
Not with "Bob's RAID Controllers", no. You can find old Compaq, HP or Adaptec controllers easily enough, though. My point, however, was if you were going to suffer the performance hit on the off chance you might not be able to find a controller in three years...well, that's just stupid. You might also be hit by a bus and no one else can find the receipt for the hard drives, so you can't get them replaced, either. You can always find stupid reasons to not follow best practices, but they remain stupid no matter how well you try to justify them.
3) About a backup. If a backup was good enough then people would use RAID0. You are not a IT professional for sure.
You follow that sentence with a denegration of my abilities? Putz. RAID is not, nor has it EVER been about backup. RAID is about fault tolerance. It's about providing continuous access to data despite a hardware failure. It's about providing you a way of recovering from a hardware failure without downtime. It's about making sure the data sticks around long enough for you to back it up. To suggest use of even higher-level RAIDs in place of backups is easily the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. Go back to flipping burgers.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re(2): Benchmarking hardware RAID vs. Linux kernel software RAID
Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 141.123.223.100] on July 15, 2008 09:43 PMExactly. If you're not going to get a card from a known, reliable vendor, then you need to buy two. If you buy from a known, reliable vendor, they'll be around for the warranty period to ensure you can get a replacement. Regardless, you should get two anyway because you don't want those servers to be down while you wait for a replacement to be shipped.
2) About a vendor and 8-9 years. That is not reliable anyway.
Not with "Bob's RAID Controllers", no. You can find old Compaq, HP or Adaptec controllers easily enough, though. My point, however, was if you were going to suffer the performance hit on the off chance you might not be able to find a controller in three years...well, that's just stupid. You might also be hit by a bus and no one else can find the receipt for the hard drives, so you can't get them replaced, either. You can always find stupid reasons to not follow best practices, but they remain stupid no matter how well you try to justify them.
3) About a backup. If a backup was good enough then people would use RAID0. You are not a IT professional for sure.
You follow that sentence with a denegration of my abilities? Putz. RAID is not, nor has it EVER been about backup. RAID is about fault tolerance. It's about providing continuous access to data despite a hardware failure. It's about providing you a way of recovering from a hardware failure without downtime. It's about making sure the data sticks around long enough for you to back it up. To suggest use of even higher-level RAIDs in place of backups is easily the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. Go back to flipping burgers.
#