On Monday 24 September 2007 12:33:39 William Warren wrote: > I mistyped..hardware raid is the way to go. FRIAD will perform worse > than Linux software raid most times..:) > > Feizhou wrote: > > William Warren wrote: > >> actually it'll perform WORSE in many cases than Linux software raid. > > > > Used to (bar buggy firmware, incompatibilities). Most hardware raid > > cards nowadays not only have sufficient processing power, they also come > > with decent sizes of RAM cache which helps swing things a lot in their > > favour. > > > > If the load goes beyond what the card can handle, then yes, Linux > > software raid is the way to go. > > > >> Scott Silva wrote: > >>> gjgowey at tmo.blackberry.net spake the following on 9/21/2007 2:43 AM: > >>>> Exactly how much throughput are you realistically anticipating? > >>>> What connection are you going to use? 802.11 or 10/100 or gige? > >>>> And yes, the chips will pretty much always give you better > >>>> performance with raid. > >>> > >>> Hardware raid gives better performance. Both of those are > >>> "fakeraid".It won't perform any better than software raid. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CentOS mailing list > > CentOS at centos.org > > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos What can I use to benchmark the different raid set ups. I could do an all software raid trial and then an all hardware raid set up, (fresh install each time) and find out which is the best for my set up. Bear in mind I still think of myself as a Linux newbie (and a CentOS virgin), but keen to learn and the best way of learning is to roll up my sleeves and get my hands dirty. -- Guy Fawkes, the only man to enter the house's of Parliament with honest intentions, (he was going to blow them up!) Registered Linux user number 414240