From: Peter Arremann loony@loonybin.org
Actually, support for the 9500s has gotten quite a lot better over the past few months - you might want to give them another try. A college of mine mis-ordered a few of them when they first came out and at the beginning the results were less than stallar. By now (FC4 and CentOS 4U1) the drivers are stable enough that the tests I ran could no longer crash the box.
That is good to here. My actual experience had been limited, but positive. But given the slew of issues, I just stopped recommending the 9500S until I heard otherwise.
-- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 07:58:22AM -0500, Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org wrote:
That is good to here. My actual experience had been limited, but positive. But given the slew of issues, I just stopped recommending the 9500S until I heard otherwise.
I've had a 9500S-8 running in a CentOS-3 dual-Xeon box for about 8 months, regularly under high disk load, no problems. The latest RHEL 3 kernel even includes the driver.
Alan Hodgson wrote:
I've had a 9500S-8 running in a CentOS-3 dual-Xeon box for about 8 months, regularly under high disk load, no problems. The latest RHEL 3 kernel even includes the driver.
Likewise, I've been using a 9500S-4 in a CentOS 3.5 server with the distro included driver. No complaints as of yet. Although the setup isn't really exotic, simple RAID1 with one hot spare.
Before that I used to download the source from 3ware, compile it and use the resulting module on previous releases of CentOS. No problems back then either.
-
Alan Hodgson -
Avtar Gill -
Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org>