On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 5:32 PM, GKH <xaos at darksmile.net> wrote: > > I hope you realize that your arguments for hardware RAID > all depend on everything working just right. Yes, but try a software RAID when you have intermittently bad RAM. I've been there. Mirrored disks that were almost, but not quite, mirrors. > If something goes wrong with a disk (on HW RAID) > you can't just simply take out the disk, move it to another > computer and maybe do some forensics. You can if that other computer has a matching controller. If you expect to do forensics you should have that. Most people would just use a backup, though. > What if I wanted to mix and match? Maybe I don't want my swap > RAID for performance. If you want performance, you'll have enough RAM that you won't ever page swap back in. > The idea of taking my data (which is controlled by an OSS > Operating System, Linux) and putting it behind a closed source > and closed system RAID controller is appalling to me. Why? It should all be backed up. > It comes down to this: Linux knows where and when to position > the heads of disks in order to max performance. If a > RAID controller is in the middle, whatever algorithm > Linux is using is no longer valid. Really??? I don't think linux has ever known or cared much about disk geometry and most disks lie about it anyway. > The RAID controller > is the one who makes the I/O decisions. > > Sorry, this is not something I want to live with. I think you haven't actually measured any performance. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com