[plug] raid

[Chris Griffin]

Thanks for the advice Craig. I take it the kernel version you refer to 
below is actually kernel-2.4.9-13 as on the latest RH 7.2 updates?

Chris G
At 15:09 5/11/01 +0800, you wrote:
> > The software RAID under Linux is not an option as I have to work with both
> > Windoz and Linux and boot between the two.
>I've never seen the point. Linux is happy with a bunch of partitions, and I
>have no problem scattering them over 2 or 3 drives - improves performance, in
>fact. Never seen the point of software raid.
>
> > It is very handy being able to
> > access the Windoz partitions under Linux. Windoz handles the hardware RAID
> > fine but when I boot Linux, no go, it just picks up the individual drives.
> > I have sent emails to both the Highpoint and Abit sites and am waiting for
> > responses (ha ha).
>I think highpoint ATA raid support has been implemented in kernel-2.4.13.
>Download and build that kernel, and see how you go.
>Yep, just checked, its there. In "make menuconfig":
>         ATA/IDE/MFM/RLL support
>                 Block Devices
>                         Support for IDE RAID controllers
>                                 Highpoint 370 software RAID
>You may well have to enable "experimental/incomplete driver support" or
>whatever in general options for it to show up, its pretty new and only just
>made it into the mainstream kernel this revision.
>
>And its right to call it "software raid". The only difference between using
>this and linux native software RAID as far as I'm concerned is that this way
>you're using the same system as windows (I think) and can share the same
>virtual volume.
>
>ATA raid, at least on-board, is usually only half in hardware, expecting a
>windoze driver to do a lot of the work. It is _not_ real hardware RAID that
>presents the array as a single virtual drive to the system like proper SCSI
>raid controllers are. It should not be called RAID in my opinion.
>
>Anybody know why nobody does ATA raid properly? After all, its a Redundant
>Array of _Inexpensive_ Disks and WTF should I have to pay $800 ea for 2 40gig
>SCSI drives which are so reliable and well built you don't really _need_
>RAID?!? I expect it wouldn't be too hard at all to implement a controller
>that presented a single ATA "virtual disk" like a SCSI raid controller does,
>all in hardware so its os-independent.
>
>Sorry, pet hate. Just had to fork out $3,000 for SCSI raid just to get 40gig
>of redundant storage for the NT (*yich*) box here since current ATA raid
>implementations are unacceptable and software "redunant drives" even worse.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plug.org.au/pipermail/plug/attachments/20011106/417ad914/attachment.html>