Linux - HardwareThis forum is for Hardware issues.
Having trouble installing a piece of hardware? Want to know if that peripheral is compatible with Linux?
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
i got a new hd to backup my data today but I simply couldn't stay away from setting up a raid 0 array to see how things work... i used two maxtor diamond plus 9 (one being 120gb in size and the other one 160) for the trick, setting up a small 4gb partition on each drive and then making a raid 0 array out of these... i know hdparm is not aimed at benchmarking, but i couldnt bother with the hassle of learning how to use a benchmark suite like iometer... well results were as follows: raid0 reaches about 70MB/s vs the 55MB/s i get from a plain, single hd setup (hdparm run with the -t option)... weird... disk ctrler is a si3112... well who cares anybody got some nice perf boost going raid 0?
This has nothing to do with performance, but I would say that RAID 0 is not worth it, regardless of any other consideration because if you lose one disk, you lose 100% of your data. It's just too risky (I think) and if you are going to go through the trouble of setting up RAID, my recommendation would be to go all out and set up RAID 5. -- J.W.
With software RAID 5, the system needs at least two processors. I suggest RAID 0 and use a hard drive to store the journal. It will be like RAID 0 with parity information. The speed of writing will be increased because the data will be on the RAID 0 array and the journal will be on another drive which will work in parrallel.
RAID 0 or RAID 5 should only be used if sending huge amounts of data over a 1 Gb network, raw video recording, raw sound recording, processing high dpi images. Using either RAID 0 or RAID 5 for a destop or server does not improve loading times. It is better to use RAID 1 (mirroring).
I'm not sure I agree that RAID 5 requires having "at least two" processors. It's true that it needs more horsepower than other levels, but I'm assuming that if RAID is being deployed, the system is pretty powerful in the first place. In other words, I'm assuming that the OP isn't trying to set up RAID on, say, an ordinary desktop, unless it's simply for educational purposes. -- J.W.
Processors are serial processing, so RAID 5 will make the server crawl. I still recommend at least dual processor system for software RAID 5. Hardware RAID 5 should be the preferred setup. An example of hardware RAID 5 controller is one of 3ware controller models.