[rescue] Sun Blade 100 Question - IDE
CARL.P.HIRSCH at sargentlundy.com
CARL.P.HIRSCH at sargentlundy.com
Fri May 10 09:38:41 CDT 2002
My mistake - I had meant software RAID1 - simple mirroring. And fast as IDE
might be, there are shared bandwidth issues in a master-slave arrangement.
-carl
Brian
Hechinger To: rescue at sunhelp.org
<wonko at 4amlunc cc:
h.net> Subject: Re: [rescue] Sun Blade 100 Question - IDE
Sent by:
rescue-admin at s
unhelp.org
05/10/02 09:08
AM
Please respond
to rescue
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 10:01:44AM -0400, Kurt Huhn wrote:
>
> AFAIK, the 'Blade 100 doesn't do hardware RAID. To do RAID on a 'Blade
> 100, you'll need to add a RAID card, which is going to be SCSI, and
> performance will generally *increase* when doing that. Doing RAID on
> most Suns also means that you've added an external box (there are
> exceptions) as the space inside the case is limited for adding SCSI
> internally...
>
> If you mean simply adding a second disk, then I can't imagine the
> performance hit would be too great - no matter what channel the drive
> goes onto. Since you're not doing RAID over IDE, you'll typically only
> access one drive at a time for large data transfers. It seems to me,
> and I could be wrong, that performance should *increase* with the
> addition of more spindles - I can't imagine it would *decrease*. That
> sounds like broken technology to me...
why can't he do software raid? with only two disks his choices are raid0
or
raid1, neither of which require parity information to be generated, so the
performance hit of software raid just isn't there.
there is no reason why he can't do raid on the SB100, and he doesn't need a
PCI RAID card to do it either.
-brian
--
Whoops, nevermind... the compile just imploded, crashing the xterm it was
running in as well... Thanks, Richard... -- George Adkins --
More information about the rescue
mailing list