From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Goetz Bock Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Logical Volume max-size? Message-ID: <20011119152703.A28540@golem.blacknet.de> References: <20011117223754.B12510@auctionwatch.com> <003801c16ffd$757c3d50$fc00a8c0@xp> <20011117231120.C12510@auctionwatch.com> <20011119105657.F27261@golem.blacknet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from tibbs@math.uh.edu on Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 08:00:42AM -0600 Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon Nov 19 08:25:02 2001 List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-lvm@sistina.com On Mon, Nov 19 '01 at 08:00, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > GB> While the cards may be cool, their raid 5 implementation sucks > GB> like hell. slow like a slug, and if it should ever become dirty > GB> the system is unuseable for about 6 hours. > Don't run the 6000-series cards in RAID5 mode; they weren't designed I figured this out the hard way. I asked some 3ware person whether I could use a 6800 as a RAID5 controller and was told, that it would work fine. > for it. Use software RAID instead; it works just fine and the card is > still cost-effective as an 8-channel IDE controller. This is true. > What you say is blatantly untrue for the 7000-series cards; the 7850 > should be even faster. As an owner of two 6800 this does not help me at all :-(, but hey they got better, what is cool. > Why the proliferation of 3ware misinformation on this list lately? It was only me who disappointed by the 6xxx series RAID5 performance Goetz.