The UK Home Automation Archive

Archive Home
Group Home
Search Archive


Advanced Search

The UKHA-ARCHIVE IS CEASING OPERATIONS 31 DEC 2024


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ukha_d] Re: [OT] UltraATA133PCI RAID Controller - £19.99


  • To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [ukha_d] Re: [OT] UltraATA133PCI RAID Controller - £19.99
  • From: Bruno Prior <bruno@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:27:43 +0000
  • Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
  • References: <000801c27c3d$4101ee10$cd0a010a@geekster>
  • Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx

Scott Ewing wrote:
>>Anyone any idea if it would work in a Linux box?
>
> Should do, raid is mostly a hardware solution, and you can choose a
> specific filesystem format for the array at install time :)

Anything this cheap is unlikely to be genuine hardware RAID. The Promise
and Adaptec ATA-RAID cards, for example, are not real hardware RAID -
most of the work is actually done by the driver which comes with them.
The fact that the manual says the card requires Windows indicates that
this is also the case with this card.

If this is based on a Promise RAID controller chipset, then linux should
support it. If not, (or even if so) just use the card as an ATA
controller to give you extra channels, and use linux software-RAID.
Unless you have very high CPU utilisation, software-RAID should
outperform hardware RAID anyway - your CPU is almost certainly more
powerful than the CPU built into a hardware RAID card.

As for the person who thought they would see a speed improvement using
ATA-133 over ATA-100 - remember, the controller does not speed up your
hard disk. ATA-100 provides more than enough bandwidth for most hard
disks, and often more than enough for two. If you only have one disk per
channel, there is almost certainly no point upgrading to ATA-133. If you
have two disks per channel, you need to see if the combined bandwidth of
the two disks exceeds the bandwidth of the ATA-100 controller. If the
combined bandwidth at burst speed exceeds it, then you may see a small
benefit, but it will be negligible. If the combined bandwidth at
sustained transfer rate exceeds it, then the upgrade would be
worthwhile. Then again, as I have mentioned before, I would not put two
disks on the same channel in a RAID setup anyway.

Cheers,

Bruno


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
List of UKHA Groups here - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UKHA_Grouplists/


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Home | Main Index | Thread Index

Comments to the Webmaster are always welcomed, please use this contact form . Note that as this site is a mailing list archive, the Webmaster has no control over the contents of the messages. Comments about message content should be directed to the relevant mailing list.