Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:21:19 -0500 (EST) From: "Brian Szymanski" <ski@indymedia.org> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: graid3 - requirements or manpage wrong? Message-ID: <4802.10.0.0.26.1101417679.squirrel@10.0.0.26> In-Reply-To: <41A5B95F.3060605@withagen.nl> References: <41A45A3F.5010008@anduin.net> <20041124171115.GP7232@darkness.comp.waw.pl> <6579E984-3E47-11D9-9576-000D9335BCEC@anduin.net> <20041125101405.GB7690@kevad.internal> <41A5B95F.3060605@withagen.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>The only problem then is - gvinum being in a completely unusable state >>(for raid5 anyway), what are my alternatives? I have four 160gb IDE >>drives, and I want capacity+redundancy. Performance is a non-issue, >>really. What do I do - in software? What's unusable about it? I've 4 250GB ATA drives, desiring capacity + redundancy, but don't care about speed, much like you, and gvinum raid 5 has suited me just fine this past few weeks. Eats a lot of system cpu when there is heavy IO to the R5, but I've booted up with a drive unplugged and it worked fine in degraded mode, so I'm content... > Vinum and now gvinum (I have not tried the latter, your words) have > never had reliable RAID-5 implementation. That is my experience only. ? This is the first I've heard of such problems? Vinum has served me well in the past, although I've never used Raid-5 before... If there are known bugs, I'd appreciate someone sending me a link to where I can read more. Cheers, Brian Szymanski ski@indymedia.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4802.10.0.0.26.1101417679.squirrel>