Really.... I went to generic 2.4.19 from the RedHat stock kernel, for other reasons, and also disabled kernel hacking, etc. It is quite workable now but still not a blazing performer. Rock solid is what I want though, so I'm good with it so far. With Reiserfs and Samba, it outperforms Win2000 Server. I wonder what the changes are in rc1 that speed it up? Dave... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Barrington" <rich_b_nz@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ataraid-list@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 9:21 PM Subject: Re: What to choose > Similar setup here, but Gigabyte Board with Promise 133 "Lite" + 40GB > Maxtors.. and it's been solid so far (once the initial setup was done). > > Dave, I found it to be slow too to start, but finding the right kernel > version sorted out the performance issue for me. 2.4.18 was dog slow (no > dma being used) but 2.4.19-rc1 was plenty fast. > > Anyway, as has been posted before, if you are on a real tight budget, > don't bother with ataraid - the setup hassle currently isn't worth it, > IMHO, depending on your system. Just get some fast but cheaper non-RAID > ATA controllers and use Linux softraid. > > Either that, or spend the money and go for 3ware hardware ATA RAID or > SCSI hardware RAID. > > If you want more info, can you post your intended purpose / setup to the > list? Eg, why 6 controllers? > > Cheers, > Rich. > > On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 07:41, Dave Stubbs wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I am running a server on the Promise Integrated RAID controller on an ASUS > > motherboard. I have a pair of 100G drives mirrored and use the ataraid > > subsystem to run them under RedHat 7.3 I had to install using normal ATA, > > compile a kernel to support the RAID controller, and then move the drive to the > > RAID controller and mirror it to the other one. Luckily RedHat defaulted to use > > the partition label to mount my volumes, which saved a lot of headaches. If you > > look at the source for the promise controller, it says "Version 0.03beta" which > > made me quite worried. However, so far it runs without a hitch, and I have put > > it through some severe stress testing. It performs solidly, but a bit slowly. > > Linux software RAID is at least 3 times as fast. I think this is mainly because > > hdparms won't allow me to enable DMA transfers on the drives attached to the > > promise controller. > > > > So, bottom line: it works fine for a home server holding a LOT of files, where > > reliability is the most important thing. For brute force performance, go SCSI. > > > > Dave... > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ola Fransson" <olafransson@xxxxxxx> > > To: "ataraid maillist" <ataraid-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 8:00 AM > > Subject: What to choose > > > > > > > Greetings. > > > > > > Im going to by 6 ata raid controllers, and i have a prore budget, what card > > > should i by? > > > does you know that it is compatible. > > > Why should i choose that whan and what should i not choose :D > > > thanx > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Ataraid-list@xxxxxxxxxx > > > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ataraid-list > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Ataraid-list@xxxxxxxxxx > > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ataraid-list > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ataraid-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ataraid-list >
