gpg: failed to create temporary file '/var/lib/lurker/.#lk0x56e3d100.hantslug.org.uk.24480': Permission denied
gpg: keyblock resource '/var/lib/lurker/pubring.gpg': Permission denied
gpg: Signature made Mon May 18 18:06:53 2009 BST
gpg: using DSA key 2099B64CBF15490B
gpg: Can't check signature: No public key
Hi Ian,
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 02:00:30PM +0100, Ian Park wrote:
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 11:21:14 +0100 Bob Dunlop wrote:
> 8<----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Been running a 4 drive software RAID5 at work for a couple of years now
> on a 2.4GHz Intel Core2 processor. The software overhead hasn't been
> noticeable so I guess you'd have no problems either. SATA x4 straight
> off the motherboard.
> 8<----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ah, thanks, that's very reassuring - I won't bother to spend the money
> on an Adaptec controller then!
Indeed, unless under very heavy write load I expect software RAID
will be fine.
> I notice that Adaptec recommend that you
> *don't* use "desktop" drives with the 3405, because (to paraphrase)
> they're not good enough - you should use "enterprise class" drives,
> which rather contradicts the "inexpensive" part of the RAID acronym...
Yes I think they are trying to up sell. Decent SCSI/SAS drives
would make a difference in both performance and reliability, but for
SATA I feel it's much of a muchness. Certainly I use bog standard
SATA II drives everywhere and still find that RAM fails more often
than drives do.
You may want to check if performance is acceptable with a drive
failed. You can do this by only putting 3 drives in to start with
and creating a 4 drive RAID-5. It will run degraded. You can then
see if it performs well enough when degraded. If it doesn't then
you will know to keep a hot spare (or a cold spare in a drawer).
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
> The optimum programming team size is 1.
Has Jurassic Park taught us nothing?
-- pfilandr
