[KLUG Members] Re: RAID

[Adam Williams]

>>"Should" is an important clause,  I've been bitten hard by lots of
>>"should"s in the past and am very skeptical.  Minor version numbers have
>>often rendered hardware components incompatible and reading the never
>>ending torrent of poorly written docs is just too much effort.  Out of
>>principle I avoid "integrated" components except for the most basic
>>(standard IDE, VGA for a console, etc...) uses.
>Well, if you want to know how I _really_ feel, I think those "BIOS-only"
>ATA RAID cards are complete wastes of money.

I think you've made that clear, many times.  No one is arguing.

>>and one avoids all the bizarre versions, hacks, workarounds, and
>>lame products that come with ATA.
>Don't confuse "BIOS-only" ATA RAID with "True hardware" ATA RAID.
>"true" ATA RAID and "true" SCSI RAID are the _same_design_ -- _exactly_!

?  That there is something to be confused is my point.

>As you said, "But my only experience is with SCSI."  I'm going to have
>to insist you are talking from a point of ignorance in that case.

Your insisting that we agree?  That I don't know anything about the ATA
controllers, etc... is what I said.

>I've used most brand of SCSI RAID cards with Linux, NT and even OpenVMS
>on both x86 (except VMS) and Alpha.
>>I know what my SCSI card is,  I know it works with 99.999999999% of
>>SCSI drives,
>Depends on your viewpoint.  E.g., 3Ware cards use FPGAs for their ATA
>controllers, so they can be upgraded to newer ATA standards and speeds.

Upgrade to new ATA standards, etc... Thats my point about ATA again, it
is a pain and a cobble.

>>And one can stack a bunch of drives up in an external cabinet with
>>dual P/S and four fans (~$150 on E-Bay).
>First off, trying to buy used hardware doesn't go over well with
>management.

We are talking about home systems,  with management of 1.

>Secondly, 4 x 80GB in RAID-10 is cheap, easy and fits in most,
>well-designed PC chassis while still being adequately cooled.
>>Drive failures?  I'm still using a cabinet full of 9Gb FH Seagate
>>drives, and they may still be spinning when I'm worm food.
>True.  Many ATA devices are not designed for 24 x 7 operation.  People
>forget that.

My point about ATA again.  Thanks.

>>I'm not interested in starting a SCSI/ATA holy way,
>I think you just did (again).

Nope, I don't think SCSI is "superior".  I was just clarifying my
message, post interpretation.  I don't want Peter to think I know
anything about ATA RAID, because I don't.  The message was about
protecting yourself from hardware failures,  which naturally leads to
pointing out what, IMHO, is a safer bet, should anyone be lurking.

>The _difference_ between you and I is that I've used _both_, whereas you
>have not.

Yes,  and I haven't used both in large part because information, such as
you provide, has convinced me not to.  A quagmire of deviant standards
and confusing products.