[CentOS] Internal RAID controllers question
gordon.messmer at gmail.com
Mon May 9 17:48:29 UTC 2016
On 05/08/2016 06:51 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> In the
> past LSI would be my definite second choice, and 3ware was winning me only
> by their transparent web interface.
3ware had a much more pleasant web UI and CLI, but their hardware was
terribly unreliable and their performance was pretty awful, too.
Today, your options with hardware controllers are mostly LSI with its
gawd-awful management software, or Adaptec, or Areca. I rarely see the
latter controllers anywhere. They tend to be less expensive than LSI,
but they don't benchmark as well, and their smaller market share may
fuel doubt about their future prospects.
And that, I think, underscores a larger point that people try to make in
these conversations, which is: There is no rational case to group
hardware RAID controllers together and discuss them exclusively. There
are pros and cons to each specific product family and no single quality
that disqualifies discussion of other options. That is, the differences
between an LSI card and an Adaptec card are no less significant than the
differences between an LSI RAID array and a software defined array.
My take is this: RAID should not be part of your long-term planning.
Everything that's not SAN is moving to software defined storage.
Microsoft is moving to Storage Spaces. The UNIX world is moving toward
ZFS and btrfs. There are a number of reasons, including hierarchical
storage and hybrid storage. Most significant in my opinion though is
that while most RAID type can detect spontaneous bit flips, they cannot
repair them. You may not use ZFS or btrfs today, but you should
definitely be looking at these, long term.
More information about the CentOS