which RAID configuration is better? - Hardware

This is a discussion on which RAID configuration is better? - Hardware ; ide0: disk (master), dvd-writer (slave) ide1: disk (master) or ide0: disk (master), disk (slave) ide1: dvd-writer (master) i'm running the former, and it seems awfully slow. if the latter would be a better configuration, will i encounter any problems by ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: which RAID configuration is better?

  1. which RAID configuration is better?


    ide0: disk (master), dvd-writer (slave)
    ide1: disk (master)

    or

    ide0: disk (master), disk (slave)
    ide1: dvd-writer (master)


    i'm running the former, and it seems awfully slow. if the latter
    would be a better configuration, will i encounter any problems
    by just switching things around?


  2. Re: which RAID configuration is better?

    Reid Fleming wrote:
    > ide0: disk (master), dvd-writer (slave)
    > ide1: disk (master)
    >
    > or
    >
    > ide0: disk (master), disk (slave)
    > ide1: dvd-writer (master)
    >
    >
    > i'm running the former, and it seems awfully slow. if the latter
    > would be a better configuration, will i encounter any problems
    > by just switching things around?
    >


    The answer is, it depends. How much do you use the DVD-writer? Normally
    keeping the two drives on separate channels is best.

    You also didn't say whether you are running RAID 0 or 1. If you're
    striping the disks, the former is definitely the way to go.

    As for switching the drives - you probably will have to recreate the
    RAID array. If you were using striping, this may mean loosing your data.

  3. Re: which RAID configuration is better?

    On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:52:34 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware, Reid Fleming
    wrote:

    >
    > ide0: disk (master), dvd-writer (slave)
    > ide1: disk (master)
    >
    > or
    >
    > ide0: disk (master), disk (slave)
    > ide1: dvd-writer (master)
    >
    >
    > i'm running the former, and it seems awfully slow. if the latter
    > would be a better configuration, will i encounter any problems
    > by just switching things around?


    The *best* would be to buy an add-in PCI card and run the three things as master
    on their own channels.

    --
    Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK
    Trevor dot Hemsley at ntlworld dot com

  4. Re: which RAID configuration is better?

    On Fri, 01 Jun 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.hardware, in article
    , Reid Fleming wrote:

    >ide0: disk (master), dvd-writer (slave)
    >ide1: disk (master)
    >
    > or
    >
    >ide0: disk (master), disk (slave)
    >ide1: dvd-writer (master)


    What are you trying to protect against? Hard disk failure ONLY, or more?

    >i'm running the former, and it seems awfully slow. if the latter
    >would be a better configuration, will i encounter any problems
    >by just switching things around?


    -rw-rw-r-- 1 gferg ldp 64905 May 13 2002 ATA-RAID-HOWTO
    -rw-rw-r-- 1 gferg ldp 20887 Aug 5 2004 DPT-Hardware-RAID-HOWTO
    -rw-rw-r-- 1 gferg ldp 14739 Mar 25 2003 Linux-Promise-RAID1-HOWTO
    -rw-rw-r-- 1 gferg ldp 88508 Jul 18 2000 Root-RAID-HOWTO
    -rw-rw-r-- 1 gferg ldp 101965 Jun 10 2004 Software-RAID-HOWTO

    To some extent, this depends on the hardware speeds (how fast can those
    disks read/write), and how busy the CPU and data busses are, but a more
    important point is "what failures are you trying to protect against?".
    The second solution (both disks on ide0) lays you open to cable failures
    as well as the disk controller and everything in-between.

    Old guy

  5. Re: which RAID configuration is better?


    On 2007-06-01, Moe Trin wrote:
    >
    > What are you trying to protect against? Hard disk failure ONLY, or more?
    >


    Hard disk failure mostly. Performance would be secondary, but nice if I
    could get it.

    > -rw-rw-r-- 1 gferg ldp 64905 May 13 2002 ATA-RAID-HOWTO
    > -rw-rw-r-- 1 gferg ldp 20887 Aug 5 2004 DPT-Hardware-RAID-HOWTO
    > -rw-rw-r-- 1 gferg ldp 14739 Mar 25 2003 Linux-Promise-RAID1-HOWTO
    > -rw-rw-r-- 1 gferg ldp 88508 Jul 18 2000 Root-RAID-HOWTO
    > -rw-rw-r-- 1 gferg ldp 101965 Jun 10 2004 Software-RAID-HOWTO


    Thanks, I will go forth and find/read them.

    > To some extent, this depends on the hardware speeds (how fast can those
    > disks read/write), and how busy the CPU and data busses are, but a more
    > important point is "what failures are you trying to protect against?".
    > The second solution (both disks on ide0) lays you open to cable failures
    > as well as the disk controller and everything in-between.


    Cable failure, geez, didn't even think of that.


  6. Re: which RAID configuration is better?

    On 2007-06-01, Gary Dale wrote:
    >
    > The answer is, it depends. How much do you use the DVD-writer? Normally
    > keeping the two drives on separate channels is best.


    I don't use it that much, except to do backups.

    > You also didn't say whether you are running RAID 0 or 1. If you're
    > striping the disks, the former is definitely the way to go.


    RAID1. Two disks, Seagate 160GB IDE.

    > As for switching the drives - you probably will have to recreate the
    > RAID array. If you were using striping, this may mean loosing your data.


    That's OK, I need the practice in doing this kind of stuff.

    Thanks.

  7. Re: which RAID configuration is better?

    On 2007-06-01, Trevor Hemsley wrote:
    >
    > The *best* would be to buy an add-in PCI card and run the three things as
    > master on their own channels.
    >


    Sounds good. What PCI IDE cards does Linux support well?

    Thanks.

  8. Re: which RAID configuration is better?

    Reid Fleming wrote:
    > On 2007-06-01, Moe Trin wrote:
    >> What are you trying to protect against? Hard disk failure ONLY, or more?
    >>

    >
    > Hard disk failure mostly. Performance would be secondary, but nice if I
    > could get it.
    >
    >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 gferg ldp 64905 May 13 2002 ATA-RAID-HOWTO
    >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 gferg ldp 20887 Aug 5 2004 DPT-Hardware-RAID-HOWTO
    >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 gferg ldp 14739 Mar 25 2003 Linux-Promise-RAID1-HOWTO
    >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 gferg ldp 88508 Jul 18 2000 Root-RAID-HOWTO
    >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 gferg ldp 101965 Jun 10 2004 Software-RAID-HOWTO

    >
    > Thanks, I will go forth and find/read them.
    >
    >> To some extent, this depends on the hardware speeds (how fast can those
    >> disks read/write), and how busy the CPU and data busses are, but a more
    >> important point is "what failures are you trying to protect against?".
    >> The second solution (both disks on ide0) lays you open to cable failures
    >> as well as the disk controller and everything in-between.

    >
    > Cable failure, geez, didn't even think of that.
    >


    Have you considered not using RAID? If you're worried about data loss,
    using rsync to mirror your drive overnight protects against accidentally
    deleting a file - providing that you catch the problem before the next
    rsync run. The most you will lose is one day's work if you do a nightly
    mirror.

    Again, this protects against disk failure and some human errors. The
    latter are much more common than the former.

+ Reply to Thread