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

Hmmm.... that smells like a need for RAIDframe and RAID 5, not for CCD.
 
> I decided to go with CCD instead of RaidFRAME because of:
>  - performance numbers are better with CCD (see below)

see below :) 

>  - CCD kernel is 275k smaller than raidframe kernel

This may be a valid reason on a small machine, but on a 128MB machine it's 
not that big of a deal.  (I hate bloat, but on a 128MB machine, 275K shouldn't 
be one of the top three reasons for choosing a ccd over a RAID 5 :) )

>  - CCD has been around longer (more stable?)

CCD has *much* less machinery to go wrong. :)

The biggest reason for going with CCD over RAIDframe should be that you don't 
need the RAID 1 or RAID 5 functionality.

> I'm curious as to whether I'd get better performance on my 3 drive setup if
> all three drives were identical.
> 
> Here are my numbers:
[snip]

Output speed of RAIDframe right now is known to be on the slow side.  Once I 
verify them, I'll be committing changes which bump up the write 
performance a fair bit.  (If you're interested in doing more benchmarking 
before you put real data on those disks, let me know, and I'll let you 
know what you need to do to crank up the speed :) ).

Later...

Greg Oster