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