[CentOS] Re: Anaconda doesn't support raid10

Thu May 10 19:17:51 UTC 2007
Ross S. W. Walker <rwalker at medallion.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: centos-bounces at centos.org 
> [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of Ruslan Sivak
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:39 PM
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Re: Anaconda doesn't support raid10
> Feizhou wrote:
> > Ruslan Sivak wrote:
> >> Feizhou wrote:
> >>> Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> >>>> Hey look at me! I'm top-posting!!! Nanny-nanny-poo-poo
> >>>>
> >>>> Come get me Trolls!
> >>>
> >>> Please do not top post. :)
> >>>
> >> He was probably hinting at me for top posting.  Unfortunately, 
> >> sometimes I write from the blackberry, which only allows top 
> >> posting.  Take it up with RIM.
> >
> > Hence the smiley.
> >
> I know you meant it in a joking way.  I'm kinda pissed at RIM 
> though for 
> not letting me reply properly on my blackberry. 

I understand I often use my BB too and get a lot of flak for top-posting.

F at ck em

> >>>
> >>>> SATA drives typically do 60-70MBs, interleaved you
> >>>> should see 120-140MB/s on sequential. Random IO on SATA
> >>>> usually sucks too badly to even talk about...
> >>>
> >>> Eh? It cannot be worse than PATA drives now can it?
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >> Probably not, but is SATA really much worse then SCSI or 
> SAS?  I did 
> >> some testing on a dell PE 2950 of 750GB SATA's vs SAS and SCSI 
> >> drives, and the SATA drives seem to be faster at least at first 
> >> glance.  I don't have good numbers from the  SCSI tests, 
> but at least 
> >> for sequantial, I'm getting a better speed off the SATAs.
> >
> > sequential will be better than SCSI due to the packing on those 
> > platters which make up for the lack in rpm. NCQ should even up the 
> > random ability of SATA disks versus SCSI drives but that 
> support has 
> > only become available lately on Linux and you also need the right 
> > hardware (besides the right disks).
> How would I know if my system is using NCQ?  I think my 
> drives and card 
> should support it.

Get the controller make/model and look it up, then get the drives
make/model and look it up. If they both support NCQ then you should
be good.

While your there get the sustained data transfer rate, total read
seek time (includes rotational latency) and total write seek time.


This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged
and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto,
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the
original and any copy or printout thereof.