Erik Rungi writes:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 02:16:42PM -0700, Aaron J. Grier wrote:
> > > 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, bu
> t 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.
> > 
> > And have performance that was so bad, you might as well have used floppies.
> > 
> > I've been extremely disappointed in the performance of RAIDframe, no matter
> > how I configure it.  Even a stripe/mirror setup yields about 1/4 the 
> > performance of one of the underlying drives.
> 
> Please tell me this "floppy drive speed" comment is an exagerration. 

It certainly is from my perspective.  (I've asked Thor to send me whatever 
configuration info he can, as there has to be something weird going on..)

> If degraded mode performance is really that bad, 

I don't think he's even talking about degraded mode :-(

> there's probably not much point
> in me pursuing a raid5 solution.

If you've got the disks (which you do), it's easy enough to setup and see what 
kind of performance you achieve.  If it's not performing up to expectations, 
then we need to figure out why and fix the problem...

Later...

Greg Oster