On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 02:13:14 -0800, Bryan Koschmann - GKT wrote: > Thank you very much for that insight. I had never realized that it could > cause longer latency. The machine I setup for a client was SCSI raid, so > maybe that makes a difference as well. Of course, the other client that I > did a special RAID for was doing video work, and they almost required a > RAID. Maybe for my purposes simply have 2 drives, one for operating system > other strictly for recording, would be better? SCSI disks tend to have faster seek times, so the latency might not be as noticable. > In the end I will only be doing 4 different inputs max, so maybe I am > overdoing it a bit. > > On a side note, is there any way I could get you to give me a bit more > info about how you went about setting up your RAID(s)? Offlist is fine if > it will be too offtopic. Don't worry about it if you don't want to. There is a softraid HOWTO (http://en.tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-RAID-HOWTO.html). I'd be a bit wary about using IDE hardware RAID as (AFAIK) theres still no standard for it, so if you trash your controller you might not be able to get the data back. I've used SCSI based HW and SW RAID under linux with no problems, but I have not used them in situations where latency was important. Your likly to be better off with a system and audio disk, like you said. - Steve
