On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:43:35AM +0100, Peter Kjellstrom wrote:
On Wednesday 13 January 2010, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 01:05:39AM +0100, Peter Kjellstrom wrote:
On Tuesday 12 January 2010, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 1/12/2010 10:39 AM, Peter Kjellstrom wrote:
...
> ...that said, it's not much worse than the competetion, storage > simply sucks ;-(
So you are saying people dole out huge amounts of money for rubbish? That the software raid people were and have always been right?
Nope, storage sucks, that includes the software ;-)
If you can split the storage up into 2TB or smaller volumes that you can mount into sensible locations to spread the load and avoid contention you can always use software RAID1.
Funny you should mention software RAID1... I've seen two instances of that getting silently out-of-sync and royally screwing things up beyond all repair.
Maybe this thread has gone on long enough now?
Not yet :)
Please tell more about your hardware and software. What distro? What kernel? What disk controller? What disks?
Both of my data-points are several years old so most of the details are lost in the fog-of-lost-memories...
Ok.. too bad.
Both were on desktop class hardware with onboard IDE or SATA. If I remember correctly one was on CentOS(4?) and one was on either an old Ubuntu or a classic debian (atleast we're talking 2.6 kernels).
My main point was that, nope, linux-md is not the holy grail either.
The only storage products that I've not had fail me tend to be either:
- Those that are too new (give them time)
- Those that I havn't tried (in scale) yet (which always gives a strong "the
grass is greener on the other side feeling")
Yep :)
-- Pasi