On Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 01:40:31AM -0700, Jon Hardcastle wrote:
> --- On Tue, 25/8/09, Robin Hill <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > From: Robin Hill <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: Raid 5 - not clean and then a failure.
> > To: linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Date: Tuesday, 25 August, 2009, 9:16 AM
> > On Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:54:49AM
> > -0700, Jon Hardcastle wrote:
> >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > I have been having some problems with my arrays that I think i have
> > > nailed down to a pci controller (well I say that - it is always the
> > > drives connected to *a* controller but I have tried 2!) anyway the
> > > latest saga is i was trying some new kernel options last night - which
> > > didn't work.
> > >
> > Did they have the same chipset? I had problems with PCI controllers on
> > one of my systems, which turned out to be some sort of conflict between
> > the onboard chipset and the chipset on the controllers. I found a PCI
> > card with a different chipset and have had no issues since.
>
> They are/were cheapy little via ones from 'aria' I got a new one and
> installed it along side a week ago 1 drive on it to 'test', when my
> array came to do a scrub a week later I got a whole host of issues. I
> am not sure what the cause was but now either of the controllers seem
> work reliably. I have a pci express controller but my kernel doesnt
> (yet!) support pci express. Do you know of you can get sata 3 on pci?
> or is it too slow?
>
By SATA 3, I assume you're actually referring to SATA 3GBit/s (as SATA 3
has only just been ratified, and I doubt you can get it at all yet)?
You'll probably be able to find PCI cards that support it, but the
standard PCI bus (32-bit, 33MHz) only has a bandwidth of 1 GBit/s, so
can't even keep up with 1.5GBit/s SATA, let alone 3GBit/s. A 64-bit or
66MHz bus would do better though.
Cheers,
Robin
--
___
( ' } | Robin Hill <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
/ / ) | Little Jim says .... |
// !! | "He fallen in de water !!" |
Attachment:
pgpxncmCWGILE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
