From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NfAY7-0004eD-EN for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:16:03 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5F46AE0AF4; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:15:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpq1.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net (smtpq1.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net [212.54.42.164]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18FAFE0AF4 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:15:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [212.54.42.140] (helo=smtp9.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net) by smtpq1.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NfAX7-0002HG-6f for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:15:01 +0100 Received: from 5353258a.cable.casema.nl ([83.83.37.138] helo=data.hosts.antarean.org) by smtp9.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NfAWt-0001jv-Ks for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:14:47 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by data.hosts.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8C402890B for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:14:46 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at antarean.org Received: from data.hosts.antarean.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (data.hosts.antarean.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B6xqllP8JiOE for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:14:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from eve.localnet (eve.hosts.antarean.org [10.1.5.100]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by data.hosts.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C35C524C27 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:14:46 +0100 (CET) From: "J. Roeleveld" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 1-Terabyte drives - 4K sector sizes? -> bar performance so far Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:14:46 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.3 (Linux/2.6.30-gentoo-r5; KDE/4.3.3; x86_64; ; ) References: <5bdc1c8b1002070827i14f59047k39a695900ebe9889@mail.gmail.com> <201002092037.38105.joost@antarean.org> <33B5FAE6-A6E8-4BF9-80C2-3B797FE9232F@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <33B5FAE6-A6E8-4BF9-80C2-3B797FE9232F@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201002101214.46341.joost@antarean.org> X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-ID: 1NfAWt-0001jv-Ks X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-SpamCheck: geen spam, SpamAssassin (niet cached, score=-2.599, vereist 5, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -2.60) X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-From: joost@antarean.org X-Spam-Status: No X-Archives-Salt: 7eb26db9-fb7e-431f-acb6-f2466f5047b7 X-Archives-Hash: df10ec29a675b6181ff400231d09483c On Wednesday 10 February 2010 02:28:59 Stroller wrote: > On 9 Feb 2010, at 19:37, J. Roeleveld wrote: > > ... > > Don't get me started on those ;) > > The reason I use Linux Software Raid is because: > > 1) I can't afford hardware raid adapters > > 2) It's generally faster then hardware fakeraid > > I'd rather have slow hardware RAID than fast software RAID. I'm not > being a snob, it just suits my purposes better. I don't consider that comment as "snobbish" as I actually agree. But as I am using 6 disks in the array, a hardware RAID card to handle that would have pushed me above budget. It is planned for a future upgrade (along with additional disks), but that will have to wait till after another few expenses. > If speed isn't an issue then secondhand prices of SATA RAID > controllers (PCI & PCI-X form-factor) are starting to become really > cheap. Obviously new cards are all PCI-e - industry has long moved to > that, and enthusiasts are following. My mainboard has PCI, PCI-X and PCI-e (1x and 16x), which connector-type would be best suited? Also, I believe a PCI-e 8x card would work in a PCI-e 16x slot, but does this work with all mainboards/cards? Or are some more picky about this? > I would be far less invested in hardware RAID if I could find regular > SATA controllers which boasted hot-swap. I've read reports of people > hot-swapping SATA drives "just fine" on their cheap controllers but > last time I checked there were no manufacturers who supported this as > a feature. The mainboard I use (ASUS M3N-WS) has a working hotswap support (Yes, I tested this) using hotswap drive bays. Take a disk out, Linux actually sees it being removed prior to writing to it and when I stick it back in, it gets a new device assigned. On a different machine, where I tried it, the whole machine locked up when I removed the disk (And SATA is supposed to be hotswappable by design...) -- Joost