Subject: Re: ccd vs. raidframe performance [was Re: ccd/SCSI error]
To: None <port-i386@netbsd.org>
From: Aaron J. Grier <agrier@poofy.goof.com>
List: port-i386
Date: 06/28/1999 14:16:42
On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 05:00:29PM -0400, Erik Rungi wrote:

> Oog.  If this happens again I'm replacing the drive.  Its brand new, but I
> can't afford to have data corruption.

If you can't afford data corruption, why are you running RAID0?  With
three drives you could run RAID5 and still be running after a single
drive failure.

As for ccd vs. RAIDFrame, RAIDFrame may bloat your kernel by quite a
bit, but it's worth it to get all flavours of RAID.

----
  Aaron J. Grier  | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | agrier@poofy.goof.com
        "I hear that if you win, you get a free probe by aliens."
		   --  Bill Coldwell, regarding the SETI@home project