Subject: Re: RAID suggestions
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Greg Oster <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/03/1999 13:40:58
> In message <Pine.NEB.email@example.com>, poston
> >I like RAIDframe a *lot*. You can always just say no to soft updates.
> Yeah, but soft updates are *awesome*. I've got real-world usage that goes
> from 5 minutes to 15 seconds with soft updates. (Refiling 10,000 MH
Just to confirm: Frank (fvdl) fixed a bug such that the softupdates stuff
now plays much nicer with RAIDframe.. but I can still (consistently) tickle
a panic under high load (w/ softdeps + RAIDframe). So for now, unfortunately,
the safest thing is to not use softdeps w/ RAIDframe :(
> >I've built a very nice little RAID system for home (every home should
> >have one) using RAIDframe / NetBSD 1.4.1 / UDMA drives, very good
> >performance ( 30 MB/sec read, 23 MB/sec write - 6 drives arranged
> >as a 4+1+1 RAID V, 25 GB usable, under $2K total ). The only "trick"
> >was to arrange things so that each drive has it's own UDMA controller
> >(no slaves). One of the best RAID systems (stability wise) I've run
> >across in 10 years of building/doing RAID (since the days of funding
> >the Berkeley RAID project!)
MMMmmmm RAIDframe :)
> Not bad. How stable is RAIDframe these days, modulo soft updates?
My main box, which has a RAIDframe RAID 5 set holding a heavily used
filesystem, has been up for 50 days now... (50 days ago it was taken
down to add a sound card). If RAIDframe ever becomes unstable,
I want to know about it...