It looks like this was supposed to be copied to the list as well as myself. On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 15:01:37 +0800, Hadders <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks Bruno and thanks Markku for your tip on the dmraid tool. > > My complication comes in the fact that I want the RAID 0 performance for > Windows and I want to dual-boot between Linux/Windows XP, so I'm looking > for the hardware support to access the container for both Operating System. > > You're right about the reliability of the RAID 0, but I already have two > PATA disks that I use as a RAID 1, they function right now off the > Gigabyte GigaRAID controller, which has them setup as mirrors. I could > split the volume into an NTFS and ext3 partition, then just backup to it > from either OS. Both drives are reliable and unlikely to fail unlike > new, untested disks. > > I have used the software RAID in linux before and am familiar with > setting that up, and yes, I trust it and know it's pretty good. But to > dual boot the OS I need to use the hardware container the SATA > controller provides. > > Ideally, I'd like to migrate my existing FC5 setup to the new SATAII, I > guess the beauty of new disks is that I can install them, configure them > from my current FC5 setup and then migrate and fallback if it fails or > keep trying as needed. > > So I'm thinking the first thing to do is get my GigaRAID working. This > is an ITE IT8212F RAID chipset. > dmraid doesn't seem to support this. > > Does anybody have any knowledge of getting this chipset to work, gotchas > etc..? > Will I need to find some drivers, recompile my kernel for driver support > and then try? > > > > > > Bruno Wolff III wrote: > >On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 09:57:41 +0800, > > Hadders <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>But then I figured, hmmm, why not go to RAID 0 SATAII, performance will > >>be sweet, and then I can dual boot between XP/FC > >> > > > >On a typical home system, you probably aren't being limited by your disk > >speed > >most of the time. So you might want to use raid 1 instead of raid 0. You > >will still get read performance benefits, but noit write performance. > >However, in event of a disk failure, you can still use your system while > >waiting for a replacement disk to arrive. > > > > > >>But had no idea how to do this for Linux, but have setup software RAID > >>before. > >> > > > >One way to do is is to set up a custom partition configuration when > >installing > >fedora. > > > > > >>1. All I need to do is add the kernel patch, but this will only let me > >>see the SATA RAID container > >> > > > >Usually there are bios settings to disable raid in the bios and then you > >should be OK without having to use a custom patch. Though I am not familiar > >with your particular hardware, so you might really have to do that. > > > > > >>2. I must then use software RAID to create a RAID 0 array, as there's > >>no RAID being done in hardware, because it's not really a hardware RAID > >>chipset and that for Windows it probably just does its own software RAID > >>with the driver provided, but for Linux lets you do this yourself, cause > >>why reinvent the wheel? > >> > > > >Software raid under Linux is generally going to be faster than using cheap > >psuedo hardware raid controller. (If you are going to bother with a > >hardware > >raid controller you should get a real one with battery backed cache.) > >If you are pegging your CPU with other tasks this might not be true, but > >that isn't normal. > > > >Software raid under linux is gennerally more flexible about how you are > >allowed to mix and match partitions forming the array(s). > > > >You aren't locked into specific hardware to get your data back. Typically > >if > >a hardware raid controller goes, you need to buy a replacement from the > >same company or perhaps the same card (which may not be produced any more). > > > -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
