From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David Rees" Subject: Re: RAID design Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <2168.208.48.139.163.1058030561.squirrel@www.greenhydrant.com> References: <000201c3480a$9c7ebbd0$27e703ca@magnus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Gordon Henderson said: > >> I am not RAID expert but I really don't see the benefits of including >> the OS in the RAID array as if the primary HD failed, the system won't >> be >> able to boot anyway. Am I right ? > > Not neccessarily. Modern motherboards will boot of either on-board > controller, so if the primary failed, then the master drive on the 2nd > controller ought to be able to boot. It's worth checking your motherboard > though. All the systems I've built in the past 2-3 years like this have > had this ability. You may need to physically unplug the failed drive > though (and reboot) if it fails in a way that make it look like it's still > active. This is where having hardware RAID is a definate advantage over software RAID as you won't have to intervene if one of your drives has half-way failed and the primary is detected but you can't actually read from it. Now that you can pick up 3ware 6xxx cards for $60-70, you can't really complain about the price, either: http://www.weirdstuff.com/commerce/catalog/spcategory.jsp?category_id=1267&czuid=1058030005578 -Dave