Intel SATAII RAID 0 config
Bruno Wolff III
bruno at wolff.to
Sat Dec 2 07:41:34 UTC 2006
It looks like this was supposed to be copied to the list as well as myself.
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 15:01:37 +0800,
Hadders <fedora at workingwithit.com> wrote:
> Thanks Bruno and thanks Markku for your tip on the dmraid tool.
>
> My complication comes in the fact that I want the RAID 0 performance for
> Windows and I want to dual-boot between Linux/Windows XP, so I'm looking
> for the hardware support to access the container for both Operating System.
>
> You're right about the reliability of the RAID 0, but I already have two
> PATA disks that I use as a RAID 1, they function right now off the
> Gigabyte GigaRAID controller, which has them setup as mirrors. I could
> split the volume into an NTFS and ext3 partition, then just backup to it
> from either OS. Both drives are reliable and unlikely to fail unlike
> new, untested disks.
>
> I have used the software RAID in linux before and am familiar with
> setting that up, and yes, I trust it and know it's pretty good. But to
> dual boot the OS I need to use the hardware container the SATA
> controller provides.
>
> Ideally, I'd like to migrate my existing FC5 setup to the new SATAII, I
> guess the beauty of new disks is that I can install them, configure them
> from my current FC5 setup and then migrate and fallback if it fails or
> keep trying as needed.
>
> So I'm thinking the first thing to do is get my GigaRAID working. This
> is an ITE IT8212F RAID chipset.
> dmraid doesn't seem to support this.
>
> Does anybody have any knowledge of getting this chipset to work, gotchas
> etc..?
> Will I need to find some drivers, recompile my kernel for driver support
> and then try?
>
>
>
>
>
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 09:57:41 +0800,
> > Hadders <fedora at workingwithit.com> wrote:
> >
> >>But then I figured, hmmm, why not go to RAID 0 SATAII, performance will
> >>be sweet, and then I can dual boot between XP/FC
> >>
> >
> >On a typical home system, you probably aren't being limited by your disk
> >speed
> >most of the time. So you might want to use raid 1 instead of raid 0. You
> >will still get read performance benefits, but noit write performance.
> >However, in event of a disk failure, you can still use your system while
> >waiting for a replacement disk to arrive.
> >
> >
> >>But had no idea how to do this for Linux, but have setup software RAID
> >>before.
> >>
> >
> >One way to do is is to set up a custom partition configuration when
> >installing
> >fedora.
> >
> >
> >>1. All I need to do is add the kernel patch, but this will only let me
> >>see the SATA RAID container
> >>
> >
> >Usually there are bios settings to disable raid in the bios and then you
> >should be OK without having to use a custom patch. Though I am not familiar
> >with your particular hardware, so you might really have to do that.
> >
> >
> >>2. I must then use software RAID to create a RAID 0 array, as there's
> >>no RAID being done in hardware, because it's not really a hardware RAID
> >>chipset and that for Windows it probably just does its own software RAID
> >>with the driver provided, but for Linux lets you do this yourself, cause
> >>why reinvent the wheel?
> >>
> >
> >Software raid under Linux is generally going to be faster than using cheap
> >psuedo hardware raid controller. (If you are going to bother with a
> >hardware
> >raid controller you should get a real one with battery backed cache.)
> >If you are pegging your CPU with other tasks this might not be true, but
> >that isn't normal.
> >
> >Software raid under linux is gennerally more flexible about how you are
> >allowed to mix and match partitions forming the array(s).
> >
> >You aren't locked into specific hardware to get your data back. Typically
> >if
> >a hardware raid controller goes, you need to buy a replacement from the
> >same company or perhaps the same card (which may not be produced any more).
> >
>
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list