From: "Jonathan Vardy" <jonathanv@explainerdc.com>
To: "Peter L. Ashford" <ashford@sdsc.edu>,
Jonathan Vardy <jonathan@explainerdc.com>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RAID 5 performance problems
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 23:42:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <009c01c2fa29$f7b2d290$2e77c23e@pentium4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Pine.GSO.4.30.0304030858080.20118-100000@multivac.sdsc.edu
> The ONLY reason that I can think of to use round cables would be for
> looks. From a performance or reliability standpoint, they are a waste of
> money. I routinely build systems with dual 8-channel IDE RAID cards
> (3Ware 7500-8) and 16 disks, and ONLY use flat cables.
I use rounded cables in my case for a few reasons:
- The distance between my promise and my drives is small yet the promise
cables are long, the rounded cables I have are 12" long and fit very neatly
- The promise cables had two IDE connectors but I only wanted to put one
drive per channel; the rounded cables are single cables
- Air flow; because of my small casing the flat promise cables were
contricting the airflow quite a bit, the rounded less
- flexibility; I found the flat cables hard to bend in to place whereas the
round cables you could twist easily
I've added a link which should make it clear that rounded cables in my case
are a benefit to me. What I was worried about was that they could be
inferior quality and thus be a factor in my raid performance.
http://www.datzegik.com/DSC00056.JPG
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Jonathan Vardy" <jonathanv@explainerdc.com>
To: "Peter L. Ashford" <ashford@sdsc.edu>,
"Jonathan Vardy" <jonathan@explainerdc.com>
Cc: <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RAID 5 performance problems
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 23:42:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <009c01c2fa29$f7b2d290$2e77c23e@pentium4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Pine.GSO.4.30.0304030858080.20118-100000@multivac.sdsc.edu
> The ONLY reason that I can think of to use round cables would be for
> looks. From a performance or reliability standpoint, they are a waste of
> money. I routinely build systems with dual 8-channel IDE RAID cards
> (3Ware 7500-8) and 16 disks, and ONLY use flat cables.
I use rounded cables in my case for a few reasons:
- The distance between my promise and my drives is small yet the promise
cables are long, the rounded cables I have are 12" long and fit very neatly
- The promise cables had two IDE connectors but I only wanted to put one
drive per channel; the rounded cables are single cables
- Air flow; because of my small casing the flat promise cables were
contricting the airflow quite a bit, the rounded less
- flexibility; I found the flat cables hard to bend in to place whereas the
round cables you could twist easily
I've added a link which should make it clear that rounded cables in my case
are a benefit to me. What I was worried about was that they could be
inferior quality and thus be a factor in my raid performance.
http://www.datzegik.com/DSC00056.JPG
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-04-03 21:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-04-03 15:45 RAID 5 performance problems Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-03 15:45 ` Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-03 18:05 ` Peter L. Ashford
2003-04-03 18:05 ` Peter L. Ashford
2003-04-03 18:47 ` Ross Vandegrift
2003-04-03 19:22 ` Stephan van Hienen
2003-04-03 19:20 ` Stephan van Hienen
2003-04-03 19:28 ` Alan Cox
2003-04-03 21:02 ` Ezra Nugroho
2003-04-03 21:25 ` Stephan van Hienen
2003-04-03 21:38 ` Peter L. Ashford
2003-04-03 21:38 ` Peter L. Ashford
2003-04-03 22:09 ` Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-03 22:09 ` Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-03 22:16 ` Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-03 22:16 ` Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-03 22:28 ` Peter L. Ashford
2003-04-03 22:28 ` Peter L. Ashford
2003-04-03 21:42 ` Jonathan Vardy [this message]
2003-04-03 21:42 ` Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-03 22:13 ` Peter L. Ashford
2003-04-03 22:13 ` Peter L. Ashford
2003-04-04 20:39 ` H. Peter Anvin
2003-04-03 21:06 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-04-03 21:14 ` Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-03 21:14 ` Jonathan Vardy
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-04-03 19:13 Neil Schemenauer
2003-04-03 19:49 Andy Arvai
2003-04-03 20:25 ` Mike Dresser
2003-04-03 20:25 ` Mike Dresser
2003-04-03 21:10 ` Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-03 21:10 ` Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-03 21:31 ` Ezra Nugroho
2003-04-03 20:10 Chuck Ebbert
2003-04-04 11:44 Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-04 11:44 ` Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-04 14:39 ` Ezra Nugroho
2003-04-04 15:05 Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-04 15:05 ` Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-04 16:01 Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-04 16:01 ` Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-05 0:10 ` Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-05 0:10 ` Jonathan Vardy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='009c01c2fa29$f7b2d290$2e77c23e@pentium4' \
--to=jonathanv@explainerdc.com \
--cc=ashford@sdsc.edu \
--cc=jonathan@explainerdc.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.