Boston Linux & UNIX was originally founded in 1994 as part of The Boston Computer Society. We meet on the third Wednesday of each month at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in Building E51.

BLU Discuss list archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Discuss] raid controller drivers

I want to thank you all for the discussion on raid controllers. With the
mkinitrd command I was able to rebuild my boot image to include the
megaraid_sas driver and now I can boot from my SSD boot drive connected
to the raid controller. I've been able to get rid of two more sata
cables and now the interior of my desktop chassis is that much more
uncluttered. :)

But my problems continue.... Today's episode is about my melting raid
controller chip. The LSI processor is running at 76 deg Celsius. I'm
about to be able to boil water inside my chassis! Ugggg....

Poking around google, I can't find an explicit operating temp range for
the LSI SAS 3008 controller chip which my raid card is based on. But
something tells me 76 deg Celsius is too high. I feel like I'm on a
ticking time bomb and I'm going to fry my disk system. So, any advice on
cooling the chip? I've looked at PCI slot fans, maybe a video card
cooling heat sink and fan assembly? anyone else on the mailing list have
to deal with overheating raid controller cards?

Thanks in advance. Steve.

On Thu, 2014-09-25 at 19:43 -0400, John Abreau wrote:
> I like to stick with software raid. The argument that convinced me was that
> with hardware raid, the controller can fail, and would have to be replaced
> with an identical controller, which might no longer be available on the
> market by the time your controller fails. Whereas with software raid, the
> controller is just a generic disk controller, and if it fails, it can be
> replaced by any other generic disk controller of the same type (ide, scsi,
> sata, or whatever).
> If there are performance requirements for which software raid is too slow,
> then sure, you may need to go with hardware raid. But when software raid
> will suffice, I feel it's the more reliable choice.
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) <blu at>
> wrote:
> > > From: at [mailto:discuss-
> > > at] On Behalf Of John Hall
> > >
> > > I agree with Richard that it's easier to put grub and kernels on a
> > non-raid
> > > disk.
> >
> > I didn't think the OP was talking about soft raid.  If it's hardware raid,
> > then grub & kernels don't know and don't care about the raid, as long as
> > the driver is present.  Which he said it is; it's just a matter of
> > rebuilding the initrd to include it.
> >
> >
> > > I think there may be a script someplace to convert all disk settings to
> > use
> > > UUIDs.
> >
> > Isn't it already that way by default?  I didn't read anything in the OP to
> > suggest it wasn't.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at
> >
> >

BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!

Boston Linux & Unix /