On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 09:02, Murty Rompalli wrote: > > Yes, ataraid and promise proprietary raid both do not support that > failsafe feature. Hopefully RedHat people will someday integrate such > features of md raid into ataraid. Thanks for that information. I am a little bit confused about mirroring-ataraid. To make a long story short: Why on earth should people use it, if not for that failsafe feature which is obviously missing? According to the information I have got so far, ataraid behaves like this: - There are two disks mirrored by a proprietary software driver. (unless You use the new and experimental open source driver) The controller itself is just a stupid IDE extension card with a slightly enhanced BIOS. - If one disk fails, the whole system crashes. - In that case, the user has to guess which disk failed and copy it to a spare and restart the machine while praying loud in front of a wailing wall to the lord of data consistency. - The chance of a failure is twice as high as with a single IDE disk. - Last but not least: The Promise support is not even worth the time for writing the support request. (Maybe that is because they want to keep up the vision of selling raid hardware.) Could someone disprove those statements, please? Greetings, Hans > > On 22 Jan 2003, Johann Uhrmann wrote: > > > On Tue, 2003-01-21 at 19:47, Marcin wrote: > > > > > I know I _should_, but in case of failure of one drive, ataraid become > > > unusable (kernel oopsses). [...] > > > > Could someone please verify that kernel oopses occur when one drive on a > > Promise FT-133 fails? > > If that was true, then the chance of a system failure would be doubled > > by the raid instead of being reduced, right? > > > > Therefore, a single IDE disk would be more failsafe than a promise raid. > > I can hardly believe that (well, on the other hand - it's Promise...). > >
