Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Windows 64bit (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f46-windows-64bit.html)
-   -   Carlos was right. . . (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t493574-carlos-was-right.html)

Tony Sperling 01-03-2007 12:32 AM

Carlos was right. . .
 
Yes, indeed! RAID0 rocks!

In the end I had to dump Win2K. (Sob!) Now have 'Home', 'x64' AND 'Suse
Linux x64' on that RAID - 3 x SATA 300 Barracudas. Man oh, man, this is
almost sca-a-a-ary!

One test that circumvents the Windows System Cache - has 466MB of
throughput. This is clearly not a fair test, or any kind of real live
performance you'll ever see, but a figure describing what the disk +
subsystem can handle on it's own. With the Windows Cache enabled, I had
around 266MB sustained access which is comfortingly close to the theoretical
300. Bottleneck gone!

I know, this doesn't have to mean a lot on it's own - but it does show what
kind of head-room is in there, I believe. True, booting is fast, but after
having all the drivers and antivirus installed it really isn't that big a
difference - what really sets this appart, is Installing. This used to be so
tedious - now, if you're bored, you might actually do it once more just for
the hell of it!

Suse 10.2 RC1 has ROM based RAID support in the kernel - no need for
external drivers, a school book example of 'easy installation'! With the
MS/Novell agreement, we all may end up benefitting?

Now, I need to think about backup - I had DAT Tape in mind, but no
experience, I used to just archive my personal data in *.ZIP's, but this
setup will require a more targeted approach, I fear. I have two running
machines at the moment and one good one collecting dust. Is it practical at
all to envision a box full of HD's and no OS, to recieve nothing but backup
data? The reverse of a file-server?

Hardware is piling up here, I'm trying to figure ways of putting it all to
good use.


(This was an extremely rewarding day!)


Tony. . .



Tony Sperling 01-03-2007 01:00 AM

Re: Carlos was right. . .
 
Right!

I'm not putting anything serious onto this for a while, I'll watch it for 2
weeks, or something, before I settle in. Great fun, watching, though!

Tony. . .


"Carlos" <Carlos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:932B8BAE-5629-472B-9F13-B90A22C1639B@microsoft.com...
> Thanks, Tony!
> I knew you would give RAID0 a shot one of these days.
> Don't forget your regular backups, though!
> Carlos
>




miso@sushi.com 01-03-2007 08:54 AM

Re: Carlos was right. . .
 

Tony Sperling wrote:
> Yes, indeed! RAID0 rocks!
>
> In the end I had to dump Win2K. (Sob!) Now have 'Home', 'x64' AND 'Suse
> Linux x64' on that RAID - 3 x SATA 300 Barracudas. Man oh, man, this is
> almost sca-a-a-ary!
>
> One test that circumvents the Windows System Cache - has 466MB of
> throughput. This is clearly not a fair test, or any kind of real live
> performance you'll ever see, but a figure describing what the disk +
> subsystem can handle on it's own. With the Windows Cache enabled, I had
> around 266MB sustained access which is comfortingly close to the theoretical
> 300. Bottleneck gone!
>
> I know, this doesn't have to mean a lot on it's own - but it does show what
> kind of head-room is in there, I believe. True, booting is fast, but after
> having all the drivers and antivirus installed it really isn't that big a
> difference - what really sets this appart, is Installing. This used to be so
> tedious - now, if you're bored, you might actually do it once more just for
> the hell of it!
>
> Suse 10.2 RC1 has ROM based RAID support in the kernel - no need for
> external drivers, a school book example of 'easy installation'! With the
> MS/Novell agreement, we all may end up benefitting?
>
> Now, I need to think about backup - I had DAT Tape in mind, but no
> experience, I used to just archive my personal data in *.ZIP's, but this
> setup will require a more targeted approach, I fear. I have two running
> machines at the moment and one good one collecting dust. Is it practical at
> all to envision a box full of HD's and no OS, to recieve nothing but backup
> data? The reverse of a file-server?
>
> Hardware is piling up here, I'm trying to figure ways of putting it all to
> good use.
>
>
> (This was an extremely rewarding day!)
>
>
> Tony. . .


Does the kernal "sit" on the raid, or just the data. I have a Suse 10.0
system that does have raid (actually fraid), but setting it up is quite
difficult.


Tony Sperling 01-03-2007 10:37 AM

Re: Carlos was right. . .
 
Quite honestly, I never thought I'd live to see the day - stick the CD/DVD
in the drive and boot, and go throught the usual motions. When you land in
the partition manager, there's a RAID showing up, with two existing Windows
partitions and it suggests a set of the usual Linux partitions using up the
rest of the total space. With three drives, I adjusted the /Home dir's size
a bit and pressed 'O.K.'

That's IT!

This is nVidia RAID and it is fully recognized and supported - others may
not be, but the team claim support covering a set of common ROM based
RAID's.

If you ask me - I believe Sabayon is thinking about doing pretty much the
same thing in the near future - the support is in 'dmraid' a Red Hat
invention.

Tony. . .


<miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
news:1167814468.105944.148950@k21g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Tony Sperling wrote:
> > Yes, indeed! RAID0 rocks!
> >
> > In the end I had to dump Win2K. (Sob!) Now have 'Home', 'x64' AND 'Suse
> > Linux x64' on that RAID - 3 x SATA 300 Barracudas. Man oh, man, this is
> > almost sca-a-a-ary!
> >
> > One test that circumvents the Windows System Cache - has 466MB of
> > throughput. This is clearly not a fair test, or any kind of real live
> > performance you'll ever see, but a figure describing what the disk +
> > subsystem can handle on it's own. With the Windows Cache enabled, I had
> > around 266MB sustained access which is comfortingly close to the

theoretical
> > 300. Bottleneck gone!
> >
> > I know, this doesn't have to mean a lot on it's own - but it does show

what
> > kind of head-room is in there, I believe. True, booting is fast, but

after
> > having all the drivers and antivirus installed it really isn't that big

a
> > difference - what really sets this appart, is Installing. This used to

be so
> > tedious - now, if you're bored, you might actually do it once more just

for
> > the hell of it!
> >
> > Suse 10.2 RC1 has ROM based RAID support in the kernel - no need for
> > external drivers, a school book example of 'easy installation'! With the
> > MS/Novell agreement, we all may end up benefitting?
> >
> > Now, I need to think about backup - I had DAT Tape in mind, but no
> > experience, I used to just archive my personal data in *.ZIP's, but this
> > setup will require a more targeted approach, I fear. I have two running
> > machines at the moment and one good one collecting dust. Is it practical

at
> > all to envision a box full of HD's and no OS, to recieve nothing but

backup
> > data? The reverse of a file-server?
> >
> > Hardware is piling up here, I'm trying to figure ways of putting it all

to
> > good use.
> >
> >
> > (This was an extremely rewarding day!)
> >
> >
> > Tony. . .

>
> Does the kernal "sit" on the raid, or just the data. I have a Suse 10.0
> system that does have raid (actually fraid), but setting it up is quite
> difficult.
>




miso@sushi.com 01-03-2007 09:31 PM

Re: Carlos was right. . .
 

Tony Sperling wrote:
> Quite honestly, I never thought I'd live to see the day - stick the CD/DVD
> in the drive and boot, and go throught the usual motions. When you land in
> the partition manager, there's a RAID showing up, with two existing Windows
> partitions and it suggests a set of the usual Linux partitions using up the
> rest of the total space. With three drives, I adjusted the /Home dir's size
> a bit and pressed 'O.K.'
>
> That's IT!
>
> This is nVidia RAID and it is fully recognized and supported - others may
> not be, but the team claim support covering a set of common ROM based
> RAID's.
>
> If you ask me - I believe Sabayon is thinking about doing pretty much the
> same thing in the near future - the support is in 'dmraid' a Red Hat
> invention.
>
> Tony. . .


I have nvidia raid as well and will give it a try.
>
>
> <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
> news:1167814468.105944.148950@k21g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > Tony Sperling wrote:
> > > Yes, indeed! RAID0 rocks!
> > >
> > > In the end I had to dump Win2K. (Sob!) Now have 'Home', 'x64' AND 'Suse
> > > Linux x64' on that RAID - 3 x SATA 300 Barracudas. Man oh, man, this is
> > > almost sca-a-a-ary!
> > >
> > > One test that circumvents the Windows System Cache - has 466MB of
> > > throughput. This is clearly not a fair test, or any kind of real live
> > > performance you'll ever see, but a figure describing what the disk +
> > > subsystem can handle on it's own. With the Windows Cache enabled, I had
> > > around 266MB sustained access which is comfortingly close to the

> theoretical
> > > 300. Bottleneck gone!
> > >
> > > I know, this doesn't have to mean a lot on it's own - but it does show

> what
> > > kind of head-room is in there, I believe. True, booting is fast, but

> after
> > > having all the drivers and antivirus installed it really isn't that big

> a
> > > difference - what really sets this appart, is Installing. This used to

> be so
> > > tedious - now, if you're bored, you might actually do it once more just

> for
> > > the hell of it!
> > >
> > > Suse 10.2 RC1 has ROM based RAID support in the kernel - no need for
> > > external drivers, a school book example of 'easy installation'! With the
> > > MS/Novell agreement, we all may end up benefitting?
> > >
> > > Now, I need to think about backup - I had DAT Tape in mind, but no
> > > experience, I used to just archive my personal data in *.ZIP's, but this
> > > setup will require a more targeted approach, I fear. I have two running
> > > machines at the moment and one good one collecting dust. Is it practical

> at
> > > all to envision a box full of HD's and no OS, to recieve nothing but

> backup
> > > data? The reverse of a file-server?
> > >
> > > Hardware is piling up here, I'm trying to figure ways of putting it all

> to
> > > good use.
> > >
> > >
> > > (This was an extremely rewarding day!)
> > >
> > >
> > > Tony. . .

> >
> > Does the kernal "sit" on the raid, or just the data. I have a Suse 10.0
> > system that does have raid (actually fraid), but setting it up is quite
> > difficult.
> >



Tony Sperling 01-05-2007 02:22 AM

Re: Carlos was right. . .
 
Let's hear what you think!


Tony. . .


<miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
news:1167859890.030911.231850@11g2000cwr.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Tony Sperling wrote:
> > Quite honestly, I never thought I'd live to see the day - stick the

CD/DVD
> > in the drive and boot, and go throught the usual motions. When you land

in
> > the partition manager, there's a RAID showing up, with two existing

Windows
> > partitions and it suggests a set of the usual Linux partitions using up

the
> > rest of the total space. With three drives, I adjusted the /Home dir's

size
> > a bit and pressed 'O.K.'
> >
> > That's IT!
> >
> > This is nVidia RAID and it is fully recognized and supported - others

may
> > not be, but the team claim support covering a set of common ROM based
> > RAID's.
> >
> > If you ask me - I believe Sabayon is thinking about doing pretty much

the
> > same thing in the near future - the support is in 'dmraid' a Red Hat
> > invention.
> >
> > Tony. . .

>
> I have nvidia raid as well and will give it a try.
> >
> >
> > <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
> > news:1167814468.105944.148950@k21g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> > >
> > > Tony Sperling wrote:
> > > > Yes, indeed! RAID0 rocks!
> > > >
> > > > In the end I had to dump Win2K. (Sob!) Now have 'Home', 'x64' AND

'Suse
> > > > Linux x64' on that RAID - 3 x SATA 300 Barracudas. Man oh, man, this

is
> > > > almost sca-a-a-ary!
> > > >
> > > > One test that circumvents the Windows System Cache - has 466MB of
> > > > throughput. This is clearly not a fair test, or any kind of real

live
> > > > performance you'll ever see, but a figure describing what the disk +
> > > > subsystem can handle on it's own. With the Windows Cache enabled, I

had
> > > > around 266MB sustained access which is comfortingly close to the

> > theoretical
> > > > 300. Bottleneck gone!
> > > >
> > > > I know, this doesn't have to mean a lot on it's own - but it does

show
> > what
> > > > kind of head-room is in there, I believe. True, booting is fast, but

> > after
> > > > having all the drivers and antivirus installed it really isn't that

big
> > a
> > > > difference - what really sets this appart, is Installing. This used

to
> > be so
> > > > tedious - now, if you're bored, you might actually do it once more

just
> > for
> > > > the hell of it!
> > > >
> > > > Suse 10.2 RC1 has ROM based RAID support in the kernel - no need for
> > > > external drivers, a school book example of 'easy installation'! With

the
> > > > MS/Novell agreement, we all may end up benefitting?
> > > >
> > > > Now, I need to think about backup - I had DAT Tape in mind, but no
> > > > experience, I used to just archive my personal data in *.ZIP's, but

this
> > > > setup will require a more targeted approach, I fear. I have two

running
> > > > machines at the moment and one good one collecting dust. Is it

practical
> > at
> > > > all to envision a box full of HD's and no OS, to recieve nothing but

> > backup
> > > > data? The reverse of a file-server?
> > > >
> > > > Hardware is piling up here, I'm trying to figure ways of putting it

all
> > to
> > > > good use.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (This was an extremely rewarding day!)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tony. . .
> > >
> > > Does the kernal "sit" on the raid, or just the data. I have a Suse

10.0
> > > system that does have raid (actually fraid), but setting it up is

quite
> > > difficult.
> > >

>




miso@sushi.com 01-05-2007 04:13 AM

Re: Carlos was right. . .
 

Tony Sperling wrote:
> Let's hear what you think!
>
>
> Tony. . .


I'm transferring files from one machine to the other at the moment
before I do the install, which I assume has to be fresh given the major
changes in file structures. [Man, I gotta get a gigabyte router. ;-) ]
I already downloaded the opensuse iso.

This is probably not the right forum, but I've yet to get windows
networking to let me into my x64 machine. I can reach all my computers
from x64, including samba on the linux box, but just can't get into the
x64 no matter how I fiddle with the firewall. It's not a big issue
since the computers are not far apart physically, but if I really
wanted to pull something off the X64 box from another PC, I'd be up
feces creek without a paddle. It has to do with the password for
windows being different from logging in versus network access.

>
>
> <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
> news:1167859890.030911.231850@11g2000cwr.googlegro ups.com...
> >
> > Tony Sperling wrote:
> > > Quite honestly, I never thought I'd live to see the day - stick the

> CD/DVD
> > > in the drive and boot, and go throught the usual motions. When you land

> in
> > > the partition manager, there's a RAID showing up, with two existing

> Windows
> > > partitions and it suggests a set of the usual Linux partitions using up

> the
> > > rest of the total space. With three drives, I adjusted the /Home dir's

> size
> > > a bit and pressed 'O.K.'
> > >
> > > That's IT!
> > >
> > > This is nVidia RAID and it is fully recognized and supported - others

> may
> > > not be, but the team claim support covering a set of common ROM based
> > > RAID's.
> > >
> > > If you ask me - I believe Sabayon is thinking about doing pretty much

> the
> > > same thing in the near future - the support is in 'dmraid' a Red Hat
> > > invention.
> > >
> > > Tony. . .

> >
> > I have nvidia raid as well and will give it a try.
> > >
> > >
> > > <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1167814468.105944.148950@k21g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Tony Sperling wrote:
> > > > > Yes, indeed! RAID0 rocks!
> > > > >
> > > > > In the end I had to dump Win2K. (Sob!) Now have 'Home', 'x64' AND

> 'Suse
> > > > > Linux x64' on that RAID - 3 x SATA 300 Barracudas. Man oh, man, this

> is
> > > > > almost sca-a-a-ary!
> > > > >
> > > > > One test that circumvents the Windows System Cache - has 466MB of
> > > > > throughput. This is clearly not a fair test, or any kind of real

> live
> > > > > performance you'll ever see, but a figure describing what the disk +
> > > > > subsystem can handle on it's own. With the Windows Cache enabled, I

> had
> > > > > around 266MB sustained access which is comfortingly close to the
> > > theoretical
> > > > > 300. Bottleneck gone!
> > > > >
> > > > > I know, this doesn't have to mean a lot on it's own - but it does

> show
> > > what
> > > > > kind of head-room is in there, I believe. True, booting is fast, but
> > > after
> > > > > having all the drivers and antivirus installed it really isn't that

> big
> > > a
> > > > > difference - what really sets this appart, is Installing. This used

> to
> > > be so
> > > > > tedious - now, if you're bored, you might actually do it once more

> just
> > > for
> > > > > the hell of it!
> > > > >
> > > > > Suse 10.2 RC1 has ROM based RAID support in the kernel - no need for
> > > > > external drivers, a school book example of 'easy installation'! With

> the
> > > > > MS/Novell agreement, we all may end up benefitting?
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, I need to think about backup - I had DAT Tape in mind, but no
> > > > > experience, I used to just archive my personal data in *.ZIP's, but

> this
> > > > > setup will require a more targeted approach, I fear. I have two

> running
> > > > > machines at the moment and one good one collecting dust. Is it

> practical
> > > at
> > > > > all to envision a box full of HD's and no OS, to recieve nothing but
> > > backup
> > > > > data? The reverse of a file-server?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hardware is piling up here, I'm trying to figure ways of putting it

> all
> > > to
> > > > > good use.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (This was an extremely rewarding day!)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Tony. . .
> > > >
> > > > Does the kernal "sit" on the raid, or just the data. I have a Suse

> 10.0
> > > > system that does have raid (actually fraid), but setting it up is

> quite
> > > > difficult.
> > > >

> >



Aaron Kelley 01-05-2007 04:31 AM

Re: Carlos was right. . .
 
About the network, I've never had a problem networking with x64.
I have had some silly issues when you were logged in as an account with the
same name (but a different password) on the two machines you were trying to
use. Only thing I can think of, thought I'd throw it out there.

- Aaron

<miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
news:1167970405.237137.285690@s34g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Tony Sperling wrote:
>> Let's hear what you think!
>>
>>
>> Tony. . .

>
> I'm transferring files from one machine to the other at the moment
> before I do the install, which I assume has to be fresh given the major
> changes in file structures. [Man, I gotta get a gigabyte router. ;-) ]
> I already downloaded the opensuse iso.
>
> This is probably not the right forum, but I've yet to get windows
> networking to let me into my x64 machine. I can reach all my computers
> from x64, including samba on the linux box, but just can't get into the
> x64 no matter how I fiddle with the firewall. It's not a big issue
> since the computers are not far apart physically, but if I really
> wanted to pull something off the X64 box from another PC, I'd be up
> feces creek without a paddle. It has to do with the password for
> windows being different from logging in versus network access.
>
>>
>>
>> <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
>> news:1167859890.030911.231850@11g2000cwr.googlegro ups.com...
>> >
>> > Tony Sperling wrote:
>> > > Quite honestly, I never thought I'd live to see the day - stick the

>> CD/DVD
>> > > in the drive and boot, and go throught the usual motions. When you
>> > > land

>> in
>> > > the partition manager, there's a RAID showing up, with two existing

>> Windows
>> > > partitions and it suggests a set of the usual Linux partitions using
>> > > up

>> the
>> > > rest of the total space. With three drives, I adjusted the /Home
>> > > dir's

>> size
>> > > a bit and pressed 'O.K.'
>> > >
>> > > That's IT!
>> > >
>> > > This is nVidia RAID and it is fully recognized and supported - others

>> may
>> > > not be, but the team claim support covering a set of common ROM based
>> > > RAID's.
>> > >
>> > > If you ask me - I believe Sabayon is thinking about doing pretty much

>> the
>> > > same thing in the near future - the support is in 'dmraid' a Red Hat
>> > > invention.
>> > >
>> > > Tony. . .
>> >
>> > I have nvidia raid as well and will give it a try.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:1167814468.105944.148950@k21g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>> > > >
>> > > > Tony Sperling wrote:
>> > > > > Yes, indeed! RAID0 rocks!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > In the end I had to dump Win2K. (Sob!) Now have 'Home', 'x64' AND

>> 'Suse
>> > > > > Linux x64' on that RAID - 3 x SATA 300 Barracudas. Man oh, man,
>> > > > > this

>> is
>> > > > > almost sca-a-a-ary!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > One test that circumvents the Windows System Cache - has 466MB of
>> > > > > throughput. This is clearly not a fair test, or any kind of real

>> live
>> > > > > performance you'll ever see, but a figure describing what the
>> > > > > disk +
>> > > > > subsystem can handle on it's own. With the Windows Cache enabled,
>> > > > > I

>> had
>> > > > > around 266MB sustained access which is comfortingly close to the
>> > > theoretical
>> > > > > 300. Bottleneck gone!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I know, this doesn't have to mean a lot on it's own - but it does

>> show
>> > > what
>> > > > > kind of head-room is in there, I believe. True, booting is fast,
>> > > > > but
>> > > after
>> > > > > having all the drivers and antivirus installed it really isn't
>> > > > > that

>> big
>> > > a
>> > > > > difference - what really sets this appart, is Installing. This
>> > > > > used

>> to
>> > > be so
>> > > > > tedious - now, if you're bored, you might actually do it once
>> > > > > more

>> just
>> > > for
>> > > > > the hell of it!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Suse 10.2 RC1 has ROM based RAID support in the kernel - no need
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > external drivers, a school book example of 'easy installation'!
>> > > > > With

>> the
>> > > > > MS/Novell agreement, we all may end up benefitting?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Now, I need to think about backup - I had DAT Tape in mind, but
>> > > > > no
>> > > > > experience, I used to just archive my personal data in *.ZIP's,
>> > > > > but

>> this
>> > > > > setup will require a more targeted approach, I fear. I have two

>> running
>> > > > > machines at the moment and one good one collecting dust. Is it

>> practical
>> > > at
>> > > > > all to envision a box full of HD's and no OS, to recieve nothing
>> > > > > but
>> > > backup
>> > > > > data? The reverse of a file-server?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Hardware is piling up here, I'm trying to figure ways of putting
>> > > > > it

>> all
>> > > to
>> > > > > good use.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > (This was an extremely rewarding day!)
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Tony. . .
>> > > >
>> > > > Does the kernal "sit" on the raid, or just the data. I have a Suse

>> 10.0
>> > > > system that does have raid (actually fraid), but setting it up is

>> quite
>> > > > difficult.
>> > > >
>> >

>



miso@sushi.com 01-05-2007 10:21 AM

Re: Carlos was right. . .
 

Tony Sperling wrote:
> Let's hear what you think!


It installed fine after I flashed the mobo. My raid 0+1 was recognized.
I'll let the PC run a while and see if it is stable. Oh, it's 64 bit
Suse, but you probably guessed that.

>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
> news:1167859890.030911.231850@11g2000cwr.googlegro ups.com...
> >
> > Tony Sperling wrote:
> > > Quite honestly, I never thought I'd live to see the day - stick the

> CD/DVD
> > > in the drive and boot, and go throught the usual motions. When you land

> in
> > > the partition manager, there's a RAID showing up, with two existing

> Windows
> > > partitions and it suggests a set of the usual Linux partitions using up

> the
> > > rest of the total space. With three drives, I adjusted the /Home dir's

> size
> > > a bit and pressed 'O.K.'
> > >
> > > That's IT!
> > >
> > > This is nVidia RAID and it is fully recognized and supported - others

> may
> > > not be, but the team claim support covering a set of common ROM based
> > > RAID's.
> > >
> > > If you ask me - I believe Sabayon is thinking about doing pretty much

> the
> > > same thing in the near future - the support is in 'dmraid' a Red Hat
> > > invention.
> > >
> > > Tony. . .

> >
> > I have nvidia raid as well and will give it a try.
> > >
> > >
> > > <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1167814468.105944.148950@k21g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Tony Sperling wrote:
> > > > > Yes, indeed! RAID0 rocks!
> > > > >
> > > > > In the end I had to dump Win2K. (Sob!) Now have 'Home', 'x64' AND

> 'Suse
> > > > > Linux x64' on that RAID - 3 x SATA 300 Barracudas. Man oh, man, this

> is
> > > > > almost sca-a-a-ary!
> > > > >
> > > > > One test that circumvents the Windows System Cache - has 466MB of
> > > > > throughput. This is clearly not a fair test, or any kind of real

> live
> > > > > performance you'll ever see, but a figure describing what the disk +
> > > > > subsystem can handle on it's own. With the Windows Cache enabled, I

> had
> > > > > around 266MB sustained access which is comfortingly close to the
> > > theoretical
> > > > > 300. Bottleneck gone!
> > > > >
> > > > > I know, this doesn't have to mean a lot on it's own - but it does

> show
> > > what
> > > > > kind of head-room is in there, I believe. True, booting is fast, but
> > > after
> > > > > having all the drivers and antivirus installed it really isn't that

> big
> > > a
> > > > > difference - what really sets this appart, is Installing. This used

> to
> > > be so
> > > > > tedious - now, if you're bored, you might actually do it once more

> just
> > > for
> > > > > the hell of it!
> > > > >
> > > > > Suse 10.2 RC1 has ROM based RAID support in the kernel - no need for
> > > > > external drivers, a school book example of 'easy installation'! With

> the
> > > > > MS/Novell agreement, we all may end up benefitting?
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, I need to think about backup - I had DAT Tape in mind, but no
> > > > > experience, I used to just archive my personal data in *.ZIP's, but

> this
> > > > > setup will require a more targeted approach, I fear. I have two

> running
> > > > > machines at the moment and one good one collecting dust. Is it

> practical
> > > at
> > > > > all to envision a box full of HD's and no OS, to recieve nothing but
> > > backup
> > > > > data? The reverse of a file-server?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hardware is piling up here, I'm trying to figure ways of putting it

> all
> > > to
> > > > > good use.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (This was an extremely rewarding day!)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Tony. . .
> > > >
> > > > Does the kernal "sit" on the raid, or just the data. I have a Suse

> 10.0
> > > > system that does have raid (actually fraid), but setting it up is

> quite
> > > > difficult.
> > > >

> >



Tony Sperling 01-05-2007 10:29 AM

Re: Carlos was right. . .
 
That's great! I mean to keep a close look at his myself - so far, I'm happy
as a hand in a barrel of tits.


Tony. . .


<miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
news:1167992482.443777.190220@q40g2000cwq.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Tony Sperling wrote:
> > Let's hear what you think!

>
> It installed fine after I flashed the mobo. My raid 0+1 was recognized.
> I'll let the PC run a while and see if it is stable. Oh, it's 64 bit
> Suse, but you probably guessed that.
>
> >
> >
> > Tony. . .
> >
> >
> > <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
> > news:1167859890.030911.231850@11g2000cwr.googlegro ups.com...
> > >
> > > Tony Sperling wrote:
> > > > Quite honestly, I never thought I'd live to see the day - stick the

> > CD/DVD
> > > > in the drive and boot, and go throught the usual motions. When you

land
> > in
> > > > the partition manager, there's a RAID showing up, with two existing

> > Windows
> > > > partitions and it suggests a set of the usual Linux partitions using

up
> > the
> > > > rest of the total space. With three drives, I adjusted the /Home

dir's
> > size
> > > > a bit and pressed 'O.K.'
> > > >
> > > > That's IT!
> > > >
> > > > This is nVidia RAID and it is fully recognized and supported -

others
> > may
> > > > not be, but the team claim support covering a set of common ROM

based
> > > > RAID's.
> > > >
> > > > If you ask me - I believe Sabayon is thinking about doing pretty

much
> > the
> > > > same thing in the near future - the support is in 'dmraid' a Red Hat
> > > > invention.
> > > >
> > > > Tony. . .
> > >
> > > I have nvidia raid as well and will give it a try.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1167814468.105944.148950@k21g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > Tony Sperling wrote:
> > > > > > Yes, indeed! RAID0 rocks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the end I had to dump Win2K. (Sob!) Now have 'Home', 'x64'

AND
> > 'Suse
> > > > > > Linux x64' on that RAID - 3 x SATA 300 Barracudas. Man oh, man,

this
> > is
> > > > > > almost sca-a-a-ary!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One test that circumvents the Windows System Cache - has 466MB

of
> > > > > > throughput. This is clearly not a fair test, or any kind of real

> > live
> > > > > > performance you'll ever see, but a figure describing what the

disk +
> > > > > > subsystem can handle on it's own. With the Windows Cache

enabled, I
> > had
> > > > > > around 266MB sustained access which is comfortingly close to the
> > > > theoretical
> > > > > > 300. Bottleneck gone!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know, this doesn't have to mean a lot on it's own - but it

does
> > show
> > > > what
> > > > > > kind of head-room is in there, I believe. True, booting is fast,

but
> > > > after
> > > > > > having all the drivers and antivirus installed it really isn't

that
> > big
> > > > a
> > > > > > difference - what really sets this appart, is Installing. This

used
> > to
> > > > be so
> > > > > > tedious - now, if you're bored, you might actually do it once

more
> > just
> > > > for
> > > > > > the hell of it!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Suse 10.2 RC1 has ROM based RAID support in the kernel - no need

for
> > > > > > external drivers, a school book example of 'easy installation'!

With
> > the
> > > > > > MS/Novell agreement, we all may end up benefitting?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, I need to think about backup - I had DAT Tape in mind, but

no
> > > > > > experience, I used to just archive my personal data in *.ZIP's,

but
> > this
> > > > > > setup will require a more targeted approach, I fear. I have two

> > running
> > > > > > machines at the moment and one good one collecting dust. Is it

> > practical
> > > > at
> > > > > > all to envision a box full of HD's and no OS, to recieve nothing

but
> > > > backup
> > > > > > data? The reverse of a file-server?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hardware is piling up here, I'm trying to figure ways of putting

it
> > all
> > > > to
> > > > > > good use.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (This was an extremely rewarding day!)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tony. . .
> > > > >
> > > > > Does the kernal "sit" on the raid, or just the data. I have a Suse

> > 10.0
> > > > > system that does have raid (actually fraid), but setting it up is

> > quite
> > > > > difficult.
> > > > >
> > >

>





All times are GMT. The time now is 11:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.