Quote:
|
Originally Posted by poogles_uk
Well, the guy building the raid zilla was trying to get away from the Snap Server
They aren't 100% stable, but they aint bad.
The raid zilla would be very stable if you could get it to run FreeBSD, and you dont need that many drives. He has nearly god 2TB
|
Snap Servers are fine if they meet your speed and storage capacity requirements. In my case (I'm the RAIDzilla guy) I had files spread over a dozen 480GB Snap 4100's and I was bottlenecked by the speed of the Snap server. Newer Snap models are almost certainly much faster, but aren't cost-effective compared with the RAIDzilla.
I'm running FreeBSD 5.4 on the RAIDzillas, and a single RAIDzilla (16 400GB drives) has 2 2TB data partitions (along with a large OS area and 2 150GB work partitions). More details (and benchmarks) on the
RAIDzilla web page.
Quick reponses to other replies in this thread:
The 4100 treats all 4 drives as masters (2 Promise dual-channel IDE controllers). As far as I can tell, there's no code in Snap OS to even detect slave drives on those IDE buses. It might be possible to add 2 drives using the chipset IDE, but you'd need to pick it off the chipset IC, add bus drivers, etc.
I don't have any 1000's here, but I did do an upgrade with 2 WD1200BB's on a Snap 2000, so it is possible. If the original poster of the problematic 1000 wants to PM me with access info to his server, I'll see if I can tweak it remotely.