Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:34:13 -0500 From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> To: "questions@freebsd.org" <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RAID Cards Message-ID: <20050630213413.GJ2392@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <20050630211028.GP1280@rabbit> References: <42C45161.1070402@toldme.com> <20050630204448.8E0F543D4C@mx1.FreeBSD.org> <20050630211028.GP1280@rabbit>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Jun 30), Mark Bucciarelli said: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 04:48:18PM -0400, Simon wrote: > > Just because there is no monitoring tool available due to lack of > > support, doesn't mean the card itself is bad. I much prefer > > hardware implementation than software. True hardware RAID frees up > > a lot of CPU time if you have heavy IO and software just can't keep > > up if you utilize CPU intensive apps. > > Why do you say hardware raid frees up "a lot of CPU time?" Have you > measured this? > > Do you have any servers that are cpu-bound instead of io-bound? > > I am having this exact discussion with my business partner at the > moment--he is also a proponent of hardware raid. I don't see the big > win in hardware raid. The three big plusses for hardware raid are: if you get one with battery-backed cache (strongly recommended), then the array can cache raid-5 writes until it gets full stripes, and can hold off doing mirror writes if there are pending read requests. Also, if your power goes out or the system spontaneously reboots, you won't have to rebuild parity or resync the mirrors (assuming battery-backed cache). And finally, hardware raid cards will automatically rebuild onto a hot spare if available and you can swap out the dead drive and swap a new spare in without having to run a single command. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050630213413.GJ2392>