-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Gary Greene wrote:
> On 4/27/09 6:44 PM, "John R Pierce" <pierce@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> David M Lemcoe Jr. wrote:
>>> If you are using PERC, it is simply not compatible with Linux, and
>>> should never be. It is a terrible piece of hardware. I would recommend
>>> using dmraid
>> say huh?
>>
>> Admittedly I'm not up on the newer PERCs, but the older ones I've used
>> were mostly LSI Logic/AMI Megaraid hardware, with Dell firmware, and
>> seemed pretty damn solid to me. These were ultra320 scsi systems, with
>> hotswap drive bays, and battery backed caches.
>
> PERCs work just fine under Linux (new and old). There are more than a few
> people on this list using Dell servers (which a vast majority use PERC
> controllers.) They are tested and certified against RHEL, so I can't see a
> reason that they wouldn't "just work".
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Okay, well to both of you. Maybe I just have heard such bad
experiences that I never really cared! haha. Sorry! I heard somewhere
that PERC just didn't work, but apparently I am wrong.
I've heard bad things with PERC though.
Sorry!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkn24nYACgkQe0Ain3PYkIYA3QCfZrC8pHYTYlfr5dPnBi953WIU
IT4Aniwsh3WhnPmk9mUnL4Juxr0Ud4cZ
=A0FA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
