Definition of RAID

[Ben Novack]

Well, there's some kind of software component; Intel's site declares
that I need their driver running on XP to do Raid 0/1 with my
motherboard, but I'm more or less assuming that a Linux solution
exists.


On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:23:17 +0100, Vincent Trouilliez
<vincent.trouilliez at modulonet.fr> wrote:
> > Personally, I chose software RAID and didn't even bother with hardware RAID.
> 
> I don't understand how RAID 0 can be done in S/W ?
> If Linux handles it, then I guess it done at the kernel level, or just
> above ?
> But to me it's a chicken and egg situation... to load the kernel file,
> you need all the bits of the file, but the bits are spread over two (or
> more) disks, and you can't put the bits together into a meaningful file
> until said file/kernel has be executed.
> 
> I cna understand how Raid 1 is different, it's just a mirror, so you can
> load the kernel from either disk. But raid O.... I don't get it. :-/
> 
> Also, how much CPU load does handling the array require ?
> 
> More importantly, how to trust S/W for this highly sensitive low-level
> I/O stuff like RAID 0 ? I anything goes wrong in the system (program
> crashing or otherwise misbehaving, bugged etc), how that might impact
> the RAID driver ? If a program misbehaves, anything can happen, and if
> it affects the RAID driver in whatever way, it could cause it to
> ruin/corrupt all your data in a micro second, horror ! :o(((
> 
> To me,  H/W controller = simplicity (from the OS/user side) +
> performance + PEACE OF MIND (the most important !! :o)
> 
> At least, people have the choice. I don't think Windows XP would let you
> do S/W RAID would it ?.... long live Linux :o)
> 
> Vince
> 
> 
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>