The point was, acceptable performance can be had without purchasing a hardware controller. And for archival purposes on a tight budget $500 bucks means one controller for 3 more drives. <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:17 PM, John R Pierce <<a href="mailto:pierce@hogranch.com">pierce@hogranch.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d">Ross S. W. Walker wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Take these benchmarks with a grain of salt.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
and, more importantly, for the thread at hand, this guy wants an ARCHIVE server, where performance is quite secondary, reliablity and data retention are more important.<br>
<br>
If he had the budget, I'd be suggesting looking at something like Copan's MAID system.<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CentOS mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CentOS@centos.org" target="_blank">CentOS@centos.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos" target="_blank">http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Jason<br>Luck favors the prepared.