-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Gary Greene wrote: > On 4/27/09 6:44 PM, "John R Pierce" <pierce at hogranch.com> wrote: > >> David M Lemcoe Jr. wrote: >>> If you are using PERC, it is simply not compatible with Linux, and >>> should never be. It is a terrible piece of hardware. I would recommend >>> using dmraid >> say huh? >> >> Admittedly I'm not up on the newer PERCs, but the older ones I've used >> were mostly LSI Logic/AMI Megaraid hardware, with Dell firmware, and >> seemed pretty damn solid to me. These were ultra320 scsi systems, with >> hotswap drive bays, and battery backed caches. > > PERCs work just fine under Linux (new and old). There are more than a few > people on this list using Dell servers (which a vast majority use PERC > controllers.) They are tested and certified against RHEL, so I can't see a > reason that they wouldn't "just work". > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Okay, well to both of you. Maybe I just have heard such bad experiences that I never really cared! haha. Sorry! I heard somewhere that PERC just didn't work, but apparently I am wrong. I've heard bad things with PERC though. Sorry! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkn24nYACgkQe0Ain3PYkIYA3QCfZrC8pHYTYlfr5dPnBi953WIU IT4Aniwsh3WhnPmk9mUnL4Juxr0Ud4cZ =A0FA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----