[nycbug-talk] New Server - IDE or SATA RAID?, 6.x or 7.x? (fwd)
george at ceetonetechnology.com
Tue Apr 1 16:18:44 EDT 2008
Okan Demirmen wrote:
> On Tue 2008.04.01 at 16:01 -0400, George Rosamond wrote:
>> Matt Juszczak wrote:
>>> Looking to launch a new server here shortly. I've had bad experience with SATA
>>> and FreeBSD in the past - primarily with some errors in dmesg that only seemed
>>> resolved when I swapped in a SATA raid controller (even though these were
>>> individual drives and not raid!).
>> From which controller to which? What types of errors?
>>> Of course, this setup would be RAID 1 - but I'm wondering what the best way to
>>> go would be - SATA or IDE.
>> Definitely 'no' on IDE. . . SATA without question.
>> I've used a lot more IDE RAID than I'd like to admit, since I end up
>> salvaging hardware on occasions.
>>> What are all of your experiences?
>> Depends on the manufacturer. . .
>> Have used 3ware, highpoint, lsi, pseudo mb raids. . . end up using
>> what's around as much as what I want to buy.
>> Look at the management tools available in /usr/ports/sysutils for the
>> card. . .
>> But LSI is probably the best bet (mea culpa, nako :). . .
>> sysutils/amrstat is pretty nice.
> i suppose by poking me, you're expecting a response? :) well, i use a
> different OS and therefore have a set of choices based on raid
> management tools that are part of my OS of choice, and ports; i go on
> that information first...but we are not talking about my OS of choice.
Poking at myself. . .
> back to the OP... why IDE? why SATA? use SCSI or SAS if you have real
> needs. "launching a server" describes no requirements for one to help
> decide the technology recommended or deployed. help us help you...
To go with SCSI or SAS over SATA or IDE should have gone without saying.
. . but ditto to that.
But when it comes to cost, SATA ends up being a choice over SCSI/SAS. . .
More information about the talk