[mythtv-users] An LVM'd drive died! What do I do...

[Steve Adeff]

On Thursday 27 October 2005 11:51, Brian C. Huffman wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 11:42 -0400, Bryan Halter wrote:
> > Well to start with for RAID you need to have disks that are all the same
> > size (preferably the same model).  I believe Linux supports growing
> > software RAID volumes and I'm sure someone will correct me if it
> > doesn't.  Personally I'd go out and buy a 4 device SATA-RAID controller
> > and 4 250GB drives that will give you 750GB of storage and fewer
> > headaches since the RAID array will be seen as any other scsi disk and
> > the card will do the thinking so you won't take a CPU hit for having
> > RAID.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mythtv-users mailing list
> > mythtv-users at mythtv.org
> > http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>
> My recommendation as well - and I did it.  In fact, I built a nice
> little "Media NFS Server" using an old Pentium 3 that I had lying around
> (free), an Adaptec AAR-2400A 4-channel ATA/100 RAID Card for $109
> (shipped) off of Ebay, and 4 - 200GB Maxtor IDE drives at $70 each
> (shipped) (Fry's Outpost).  As it turns out, I already had 2 - 200GB
> drives in my frontend, so I really only spent a total of $249.  :-)
>
> You could go SATA, but IDE is gonna be cheaper, and I haven't had any
> problems with performance yet.
>
> -b

you won't notice a difference between a SATA raid and an IDE RAID, the drives 
are the same speed and for RAID applications you've got the chipset doing 
what the normal SATA chipset does over a normal ATA chipset. Same with SCSI, 
though if you've got a SCSI raid doing striping and parity on say a 10drive 
array, then yea, you'd definitley see an improvement going to SCSI over SATA.

anyone know what the hit would be for a RAID 5 card that uses the CPU to do 
parity on an Athlon64?


Steve