[Discuss] raid controller drivers

[John Abreau]

I like to stick with software raid. The argument that convinced me was that
with hardware raid, the controller can fail, and would have to be replaced
with an identical controller, which might no longer be available on the
market by the time your controller fails. Whereas with software raid, the
controller is just a generic disk controller, and if it fails, it can be
replaced by any other generic disk controller of the same type (ide, scsi,
sata, or whatever).

If there are performance requirements for which software raid is too slow,
then sure, you may need to go with hardware raid. But when software raid
will suffice, I feel it's the more reliable choice.



On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) <blu at nedharvey.com>
wrote:

> > From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org [mailto:discuss-
> > bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org] On Behalf Of John Hall
> >
> > I agree with Richard that it's easier to put grub and kernels on a
> non-raid
> > disk.
>
> I didn't think the OP was talking about soft raid.  If it's hardware raid,
> then grub & kernels don't know and don't care about the raid, as long as
> the driver is present.  Which he said it is; it's just a matter of
> rebuilding the initrd to include it.
>
>
> > I think there may be a script someplace to convert all disk settings to
> use
> > UUIDs.
>
> Isn't it already that way by default?  I didn't read anything in the OP to
> suggest it wasn't.
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix
Email jabr at blu.org / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0x920063C6
PGP-Key-Fingerprint A5AD 6BE1 FEFE 8E4F 5C23  C2D0 E885 E17C 9200 63C6