Running RAID in a Fedora System

[Sam Barnett-Cormack]

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Allan Metts wrote:

> At 05:58 PM 12/7/2003, Hans wrote:
> >.
> >At first you must show that your RAID contoller ist supportet by Fedora.
>
> At 06:28 PM 12/7/2003, Seth wrote:
>
> >You don't mention what adaptec controller you have??
>
>
> This is an Adaptec AAA-133U2, apparently part of Adaptec's "Array 1000"
> family.
>
> --*-- Anyone see any issues with this controller and Fedora support?
>
> --*-- It sounds like the general consensus is that, with five disks, I
> should use RAID 0/1 with a hot spare -- provided I can live without 60% of
> my disk space.  If not, use RAID 5.  Everyone agree?

My experience of using RAID storage at work is that the performance
difference between 5 and 0+1 is negligible - provided there is some
degree of cache on your controller. 5 is a superior system in almost all
regards to 0+1, in all practicale sense. However, a hotspare is a good
idea. I would reccomend 4 drives on RAID 5, with a hotspare, giving you
3 drives of capacity. If you can't spare the capacity, don't use a
hotspare.

> --*-- In any case, I'm hearing that I shouldn't have to worry at all about
> recovery.  The array will simply chug along with a failed disk until I
> replace it.  And when I do, the replacement disk will assume its proper
> role without much help from me (or special software) on boot-up.  Am I
> oversimplifying?

It depends on the controller really - with RAID5, you will see a
performance deficit running with a failed disk, and it's not reccomended
as another disk failure will lead to data loss.

-- 

Sam Barnett-Cormack
Software Developer                           |  Student of Physics & Maths
UK Mirror Service (http://www.mirror.ac.uk)  |  Lancaster University