[nycbug-talk] AMD Raid question. . .

[Mikel King]

On Oct 24, 2005, at 9:43 PM, George R. wrote:

> Mikel King wrote:
>
>> On Oct 24, 2005, at 9:23 PM, alex at pilosoft.com  
>> <mailto:alex at pilosoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, George R. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Hint: Most of the "hardware" raid is *not* hardware raid.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://linux.yyz.us/sata/faq-sata-raid.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Controller fired.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> . . . aware of the grey area, but. . .
>>>>
>>>> then how come i could do raid 1 or 10, or at least it tells me i  
>>>> can. .  and these are the boards and controllers that iron  
>>>> systems sells. . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You don't really do raid 1 or raid 0 on it either. It is fakeraid -
>>> software raid implemented by the driver. And it supports "raid 1"  
>>> or "raid 0".
>>>
>>> just because $vendor sells it, it doesn't mean its proper  
>>> hardware raid.
>>>
>>> -alex
>>>
>> Um but doesn't it take software to run hardware. Personally the  
>> distinction is pointless. If the performance and data integrity  
>> are there then it is worth the risk. I personally find for my  
>> needs that the so called hardware raid is better than say windows  
>> disk mirroring of even vinum, as great a product as it is.
>>
>
> Wait a minute here. . . this is getting muddled. . .
>
> This has nothing to do with the OS, it's an AMD Opteron board with  
> an SiI114 Raid controller on the motherboard. . .
>
> And this is all pre-OS install. . . I haven't gotten to the point  
> of installing the OS on a raid array. . .
>
> g
>
Nope got that. Just responding to Alex's raid purity stance, and  
being facetious about the whole hardware raid thing... ;-)

But with regards to your sit, how critical is r5 to your install?