Vladimir Milovanovic wrote: > Well Daniel what is your take on this? I am very interested in this > since I am working on a project which has to use RAID, and performance > is paramount (after reliability of course). ...in which case I'd go for a hardware SCSI solution. The AMI Megaraid (now LSI?) cards have served me well. You can afford one by not buying XP... > I need to make a decision, > and I would like very much to stick with md, since it is what I know and > am used to. But if one can get huge performance margins using XP, then I > am going to have to consider that. You must remember that this is RAID0, and says nothing about other RAID levels. I'm assuming you wouldn't be implementing a RAID0 (not on its own, anyway - maybe 5+0) if you're looking for reliability. You've also got to look at where you need the speed - is this a network file server? In which case your bottleneck is probably the network, unless you've got more than two gigabit ethernet cards. Tell us more about what your project needs RAID for, and we can (probably) tell you that md is just what you need. I'd be very wary of going over to XP on the back of this one report, since you're opening yourself up to a load of extra costs (on everything!). If you've got the money, then why not just go for hardware SCSI RAID? I've benchmarked NT4.0's RAID0 of two hardware RAID 5 arrays against linux's (about a year ago) and linux smoked NT, which is why this report surprised me, I wasn't aware that XP had come on so far, and I was after some feedback from the md developers as to whether they could spot another reason for the results in the report. -- Illtud Daniel illtud.daniel@llgc.org.uk Uwch Ddadansoddwr Systemau Senior Systems Analyst Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru National Library of Wales Yn siarad drosof fy hun, nid LlGC - Speaking personally, not for NLW - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
