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: > 1) Those that are too new (give them time) > 2) 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