From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Mar 3 16:17:55 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA26644 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 16:17:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from sendero.simon-shapiro.org (sendero-fxp0.Simon-Shapiro.ORG [206.190.148.34]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA26391 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 16:16:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from shimon@sendero-fxp0.simon-shapiro.org) Received: (qmail 20176 invoked by uid 1000); 4 Mar 1998 00:23:24 -0000 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3-alpha-021598 [p0] on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <199803032155.WAA04054@yedi.iaf.nl> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 16:23:24 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: shimon@simon-shapiro.org Organization: The Simon Shapiro Foundation From: Simon Shapiro To: Wilko Bulte Subject: Re: SCSI Bus redundancy... Cc: sbabkin@dcn.att.com, tlambert@primenet.com, jdn@acp.qiv.com, blkirk@float.eli.net, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, grog@lemis.com Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 03-Mar-98 Wilko Bulte wrote: ... > Hear hear. RAID parity is also done in hardware these days. Mostly for > speed reasons. A second reason to go for a standalone RAIDbox is of > course > the clustering/multi-host thingy. Backplane RAID is IMHO more for > low(er)-end solutions. Where does that leave kernel RAID? I like controller level RAID because: a. Much more flexible in packaging; I can use of-the shelf disks in off-the-shelf cases if I choose to). b. In the case of a DPT, you get better performance and better reliability, as I have three busses to spread the I/O across, and three busses to take fatal failures on. c. I am used to it (see you argue with that :-) ... > This is probably true. You also want to realise that the early production > units of a given drive model tend to have substantially lower MTBFs. It > seems when manufacturing plants get the 'feel' for producing a specific > model MTBF gets better. I think the focus has to change: * We used to do RAID to protect from hardware failure disrupting service. In the face of O/S and firmware volatility and buginess, this is absurd; As I said, I am using DPT controllers for ALL my storage. and yet have to loose a byte to disk failure (unless I use WD or certain Micropolis models). * I think RAID is only important to protect us fro mthe damage WHEN the failure occurs. I think the focus changed from operational feature to insurance policy. Risk management is something not too many of us is any good at (count the number of times you/I/we delivered a project on time. What does it all mean? I dunno. I leave it to the scientists to ponder. ---------- Sincerely Yours, Simon Shapiro Shimon@Simon-Shapiro.ORG Voice: 503.799.2313 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message