| willbill 2006-12-15, 1:16 am |
| Spoon wrote:
> willbill wrote:
>
>
>
> I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
>
> Can you elaborate?
you were the person who was attracted
to Raptor/SATA (presumably cost issues),
*not* me
i wasn't and i said so upfront
is there some disconnect here?
SCSI has had the superior performance
(over IDE and SATA) for almost forever
(10+ years)
i've been upfront with my limited lack of
knowledge on the subject of high end raid
imho, the primary use of usenet n/g's
is ideas
and i have done my limited/honest best
to give ideas in this thread
the fact that you responded as you did to
both myself and techytim is in you favor
the one thing that techytim said that
was worthwhile was doing a post on the
comp.arch.storage n/g
while i don't doubt his input on no raid7
controllers being available, i'd still
google on raid7 raid-7 raid_7 and "raid 7"
and see what turns up, coz it never ceases
to amaze me on how wrong "experts" are
i can say that i've never seen either
a raid2 or a raid7 controller, which
is why i made the comment:
"good luck finding a raid7 controller"
so far raid0 may work for you, although
it seems to still be an open question
if it's write performance will meet
your needs
my one other thought is that if you do find
a raid0 controller with the write performance
that you need, you might give some serious
thought to laying in a couple of extra 300GB
Seagate Cheeta (sp?) drives and then only
allocate the 1st 60/70% to the partition
that you are going to use (allocate the rest
to a 2nd partition and test the speed diff)
to my mind, any high end raid controller should take
the outer rims (fastest) for the initial selection,
but i don't know that for sure (another question
to pose on the comp.arch.storage n/g)
bill
|