Matt Burke wrote: > Arjen van der Meijden wrote: > >> Afaik the Perc 5/i and /e are more or less rebranded LSI-cards (they're >> not identical in layout etc), so it would be a bit weird if they >> performed much less than the similar LSI's wouldn't you think? > > I've recently had to replace a PERC4/DC with the exact same card made by > LSI (320-2) because the PERCs firmware was crippled. Its idea of RAID10 > actually appears to be concatenated RAID1 arrays. > > Since replacing it and rebuilding the array on the LSI card, performance > has been considerably better (14 disk SCSI shelf) > >> Areca may be the fastest around right now, but if you'd like to get it >> all from one supplier, its not too bad to be stuck with Dell's perc 5 or >> 6 series. > > The PERC6 isn't too bad, however it grinds to a halt when the IO queue > gets large and it has the serious limitation of not supporting more than > 8 spans, so trying to build a RAID10 array greater than 16 disks is > pointless if you're not just after the extra capacity. > > Are there any reasonable choices for bigger (3+ shelf) direct-connected > RAID10 arrays, or are hideously expensive SANs the only option? I've > checked out the latest Areca controllers, but the manual available on > their website states there's a limitation of 32 disks in an array... In the context of RAID 10, what are the drawbacks of sticking several such controllers and use them only for hardware RAID 1 arraylets, running RAID 0 across them in software? You'd lose booting from the array but data safety should be about the same since the hardware is mirroring data, right?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
