From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Sep 7 15:31:11 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA18726 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 15:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from io.org (io.org [198.133.36.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA18702; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 15:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zap.io.org (taob@zap.io.org [198.133.36.81]) by io.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA02667; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 18:31:03 -0400 Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 18:31:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Tao To: Ken Lam cc: FREEBSD-HACKERS-L , FREEBSD-SCSI-L Subject: Re: Streamlogic RAIDION drive arrays In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960829002801.00913104@awod.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, Ken Lam wrote: > > I didn't get a chance to test it under FreeBSD. Fairly fast, but > other than the RAID 5 aspect, why not use CCD? Well, ccd is a start, and I may consider it more seriously if the costs of hardware RAID prove to be too high (we're looking at 5 or 6 6-drive units to start). ccd is free, but it doesn't give you hot-swappable drives, automatic data rebuild on a spare drive and a battery-powered write back cache. I'm going to stick with hardware RAID on the news servers, but ccd should do just fine on our main mail server. Raw capacity is what I'm aiming for there, not big TPS numbers or huge disk throughput. -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob@io.org, taob@ican.net) Senior Systems and Network Administrator, Internet Canada Corp. "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"