software raid
in [Freeware]
|
From: David H. Lipman on 28 Feb 2010 13:48 From: "Craig" <netburgher(a)REMOVEgmail.com> | On 02/28/2010 07:52 AM, David H. Lipman wrote: >> From: "frank"<frankdivita(a)gmail.com> >> | Any suggestions on a software raid for vista? >> A hardware RAID controller is the *better* way to go ! | Only if you have a duplicate controller as a failsafe or you're not | worry about portability. Let's see the OP's answer to Ari's question, | but software RAID (& fakeRAID) are viable choices. Hardware RAID is better because it does not cause extra CPU utilization and the array apears as a virtual volume to the OS. Since array apears as a virtual volume to the OS is is not dependent upon the OS and can be ported from OS to OS. I learned this the hard way when dealling with multiple RAID 5 arrays. The hardware array went from NT4 to Server 3003 w/o a hitch. The software arrays could not and I spent that entire weekend in reconstruction and data restoration. Because the hardware is handling the RAID, the CPU doesn't freeing up resources. -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
From: Craig on 28 Feb 2010 14:10 On 02/28/2010 10:48 AM, David H. Lipman wrote: > From: "Craig"<netburgher(a)REMOVEgmail.com> > > | On 02/28/2010 07:52 AM, David H. Lipman wrote: >>> From: "frank"<frankdivita(a)gmail.com> > >>> | Any suggestions on a software raid for vista? > >>> A hardware RAID controller is the *better* way to go ! > > | Only if you have a duplicate controller as a failsafe or you're not > | worry about portability. Let's see the OP's answer to Ari's question, > | but software RAID (& fakeRAID) are viable choices. > > Hardware RAID is better because it does not cause extra CPU utilization and the array > apears as a virtual volume to the OS. Those are two advantages in using Hardware RAID. One of the disadvantages is the dependency on the specific controller. One (obvious) way to remedy that is by having a duplicate. That's all I'm saying... No religious wars here. Fwiw, za kAT's reminder is the best one yet: Having a tested recovery procedure is important, regardless of method. -- -Craig
From: David H. Lipman on 28 Feb 2010 14:13 From: "Craig" <netburgher(a)REMOVEgmail.com> | On 02/28/2010 10:48 AM, David H. Lipman wrote: >> From: "Craig"<netburgher(a)REMOVEgmail.com> >> | On 02/28/2010 07:52 AM, David H. Lipman wrote: >>>> From: "frank"<frankdivita(a)gmail.com> >>>> | Any suggestions on a software raid for vista? >>>> A hardware RAID controller is the *better* way to go ! >> | Only if you have a duplicate controller as a failsafe or you're not >> | worry about portability. Let's see the OP's answer to Ari's question, >> | but software RAID (& fakeRAID) are viable choices. >> Hardware RAID is better because it does not cause extra CPU utilization and the array >> apears as a virtual volume to the OS. | Those are two advantages in using Hardware RAID. One of the | disadvantages is the dependency on the specific controller. One | (obvious) way to remedy that is by having a duplicate. | That's all I'm saying... No religious wars here. Fwiw, za kAT's | reminder is the best one yet: Having a tested recovery procedure is | important, regardless of method. I give you that. Redundancy. Have a spare controller. However the failure rate of a hardware controller is possible but is neligible compared to the failure rate of the OS or disks themselves. -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
From: za kAT on 28 Feb 2010 15:56 On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:48:54 -0500, David H. Lipman wrote: > I learned this the hard way when dealling with multiple RAID 5 arrays. The hardware array > went from NT4 to Server 3003 w/o a hitch. The software arrays could not and I spent that > entire weekend in reconstruction and data restoration. This was a problem with dynamic disks. NT4 software raid didn't use dynamic disks. When 2000 came in you needed the alter the disk to dynamic before you configured soft raid. However, if you upgraded from NT4 with soft raid the disk stayed basic, which was supposed to work according to M$. However, guess what, it sucked big time. Lots of issues.. -- zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat
From: ♥Ari ♥ on 1 Mar 2010 09:34 On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:41:06 GMT, frank wrote: > Any suggestions on a software raid for vista? Well, frank, did we answer your question? *lol* -- Ari's Fun Times! http://tr.im/hrFG Motto: Run, rabbit, Run!
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 Prev: PhD Student needs survey completed to finish my research Next: Klavaro: typing tutor |