Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 17:44:29 -0500 From: "Edgar Martinez" <emartinez@crockettint.com> To: "'Brent Wiese'" <brently@bjwcs.com>, <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: 5.8TB RAID5 SATA Array Questions - UPDATE Message-ID: <20050425224428.DF3D434964@mxc1.crockettint.com> In-Reply-To: <200504251353484.SM00336@quickstep>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
No flaming here, when dealing with projects this big, you cannot be bias obviously because generally it is someone else's time and money that is on the line. Thanks for the info, I didn't know the whole second array thing, that would explain some of the weirdness that I have been seeing. -----Original Message----- From: Brent Wiese [mailto:brently@bjwcs.com] Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 12:54 PM To: emartinez@crockettint.com; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: 5.8TB RAID5 SATA Array Questions - UPDATE > Any one else think they know of a better method?? Well, I'm probably going to get totally flamed for this, but since you asked... The better method is to install Windows 2003 Server. Assemble your drives into 2TB or less RAID5 volumes (btw, you only want 1 per 3Ware card, more on that in a second) and use Windows 2003 to span those volumes. It'll show up as one drive after that. There is some limit, but I can't remember what it is. Its huge though. And in case you didn't know, 3Ware cards are only speed-optimized for the first array. Subsequent arrays on a card run painfully slow. They won't say it in any of their lit, but if you corner their support people, they'll admit it (it obvious if you try it). Sorry to mention M$ here, but it sounds like you invested incredible amounts of time, and even Windows 2003 can be cheaper than your time at some point.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050425224428.DF3D434964>