| 1 |
On Tuesday 25 Jun 2013 23:13:24 William Kenworthy wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 26/06/13 04:59, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 25/06/2013 21:10, Mick wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> Hi All, |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >> I am considering my options for a new rig destined to last a few years |
| 7 |
> >> and one of the Dell machines on offer has this Intel SRT fake-raid |
| 8 |
> >> feature, which after some cursory googling, I am not entirely sure will |
| 9 |
> >> work with Linux. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> It will probably work quite well ... easy to set up, use and is reliable |
| 12 |
> ... until the motherboard fails and you find that ALL your data is now |
| 13 |
> inaccessible until you buy a compatible motherboard ... which may not |
| 14 |
> exist! - been there, done that, never again :) From memory there was no |
| 15 |
> linux driver needed (it was all done in the chipset). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Ha! In my enthusiasm I forgot the basics! I am thinking though that SSD |
| 18 |
caching will only ever work in MSWindows with the dedicated Intel driver, not |
| 19 |
in Linux (at least not until someone writes a driver for it). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I was going to overcome this eventuality by installing Gentoo on the SSD and |
| 22 |
mirroring it on the HD somehow - not sure how at this moment. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Use soft raid, its performance is at least as good (there was a report |
| 26 |
> saying it was usually better, even against some lower end dedicated raid |
| 27 |
> cards which were resource constrained), and its portable. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Thats not to say "dont use the box" - the disk interfaces are usually |
| 30 |
> very good performers in standard mode so just dont use the raid mode. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I don't really need RAID, but want to safeguard my SSD installed OS, ideally |
| 33 |
automatically so. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Regards, |
| 37 |
Mick |
Archives