On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Greg Oster wrote:

> 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 :) 

Yeah fair enough... but I'm of the belief that most problems crop up within
the first few minutes of turning the equipment on, such as what happened to
me.  These problems tend to not be so easily solved by things like RAID5.  
Once I have a solid stripe going, I'm happy with my tape backup system.

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

This may be the case for me.

> 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 :) ).

I think my raid benchmarking days are done for now.  I only had a 6 hour
window to do those tests, between 1am and 7am, while I was upgrading from 1.3
to 1.4 :)

Only 2 more days 'til Canada day, eh.

Erik