Re: [cobalt-users] Re: Need to buy a new Raq

[Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Once upon a time, Will DeHaan <will@xxxxxxxxxx> said:
> Kris Dahl wrote:
> > This is very true.  RAID is designed to save you in the case of a single
> > disk failure.  However, I am not sure if the software RAID employed on the
> > Raq4 will accomplish this or not.  Sure your *data* will still be there but
> > the box will be down, right?
> 
> Maybe on RedHat, but not on Cobalt Linux.
> 
> We've worked on the Linux IDE drivers to better tolerate drive
> failures.  If a drive fails, the server will continue to operate so long
> as the drive failure doesn't also break another component such as the
> power supply.  I've never heard of the latter case happening so I think
> that would be rather unlikely.  

I've seen failing IDE (and SCSI) drives start screwing up the bus.  With
only two devices are installed, they could be connected to different IDE
busses; is that what Cobalt is doing?

> > > As a side note, since Cobalt uses standard IDE drives, the
> > > reliability on these drives is not too good - Mirroring the drives in
> > > them is a good idea...
> 
> The hardware for "server" SCSI and "workstation" IDE drives of the same
> spindle speeds, capacities and manufacturer are identical besides the
> circuit board controllers which rarely fail.  This is a common
> reliability misconception of IDE vs. SCSI.  I sure appreciate replacing
> $140 ATA drives over $500 SCSI's.

That is not my experience.  You get what you pay for.  When you buy
cheap drives, they will fail more often than the expensive drives.  It
doesn't matter if they are SCSI or IDE (except nobody makes server
quality IDE drives).

Just a question: will any of the mentioned Cobalt improvements be open
sourced?
-- 
Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Information Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.