On 1/12/2010 10:39 AM, Peter Kjellstrom wrote:
>
>>>> Which is why I specifically said 'performance wise' as respects 3ware. I
>>>> don't remember anything bad about 3ware stability wise or monitoring
>>>> wise.
>>>
>>> Is that supposed to be a joke? 3ware has certainly had their fair share
>>> of stability problems (drive time-outs, bbu-problems, inconsistent
>>> behaviour, ...) and monitoring wise they suck (imho). Do you like tw_cli?
>>> Enjoying the fact that "show diag" gives you a cyclic text buffer without
>>> references? etc.
>>
>> Oh, I did not hear of those and my last experience with 3ware was up to
>> the 95xx series. I did hear of horror stories of Mylex but I myself
>> never got to see one of those where the raid configuration would
>> completely disappear. Most of my experience with 3ware is with the 75xx
>> and 85xx cards which are only good for raid1+0 unless you can afford the
>> major performance hit with raid5.
>>
>>> ...that said, it's not much worse than the competetion, storage simply
>>> sucks ;-(
>>
>> So you are saying people dole out huge amounts of money for rubbish?
>> That the software raid people were and have always been right?
>
> Nope, storage sucks, that includes the software ;-)
If you can split the storage up into 2TB or smaller volumes that you can
mount into sensible locations to spread the load and avoid contention
you can always use software RAID1. That at least has the advantage of
being able to recover the data from any single drive that might still
work after a problem.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
