Hello,

I'm putting together a file-server box with a Linux software RAID5
array in it, probably about 5 to 6x 250GB.

I was wondering (and I can't seem to find it on the internet): How
necessary is it to use ECC RAM in this box?
How likely is it that some error in the RAM will screw up my array, and
if that happened, how bad would it be?

Any thoughts/links are warmly appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

"The Loeki" <the.loeki@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127737854.956781.31640@g49g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Hello,
>
> I'm putting together a file-server box with a Linux software RAID5
> array in it, probably about 5 to 6x 250GB.
>
> I was wondering (and I can't seem to find it on the internet): How
> necessary is it to use ECC RAM in this box?
> How likely is it that some error in the RAM will screw up my array, and
> if that happened, how bad would it be?
>
> Any thoughts/links are warmly appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance!

Hmm. You're running typical home file services, with backups, and not
running medical have-to-be-up-24x7 databases, right? Get *good* memory, from
a reputable dealer, and test it thoroughly. That will catch problems and
errors that spending the extra money on ECC will not, and in most cases I
think is a better investment.

So is a good quality controller card. I assume for 6x250 Gig drives, you're
talking about SATA in a desktop? If not, do: the thinner cabling for
connecting them improves air flow so much that it's well worth it, and the
controllers have gotten good, Linux supported, and much less expensive.
Except for Promise: they only got one out of three, and that one is "cheap".
I also highly recommend 3Ware as the cream of the crop, and Adaptec as a
very workable alternative.

Thanks!

It's not so much a desktop but a dedicated file server for a combined
household of a couple of people.

And yes, I am talking about SATA. I'm currently thinking of housing the
entire array in a separate tower and just bundling the wires back into
the actual server. That'll allow for much better airflow throughout
both the server and the HD-tower.

Anyway, thanks for your advice!

The Loeki <the.loeki@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's not so much a desktop but a dedicated file server for a combined
> household of a couple of people.
>
> And yes, I am talking about SATA. I'm currently thinking of housing the
> entire array in a separate tower and just bundling the wires back into
> the actual server. That'll allow for much better airflow throughout
> both the server and the HD-tower.

Dude --

Please quote the parts of earlier postings to which you're responding.
It's standard netiquette, so that people aren't obliged to go find prior
articles, merely to stand some chance of figuring out what you're
talking about.

Figuring out how to do it correctly with your webmail thing is _your_
problem, and nobody cares if this requires extra effort on your part.
(Only dead fish always go with the flow.) Behaving cluelessly in this
area is a good way to get widely killfiled (autoignored).

--
Cheers, Mark Moraes: "Usenet is not a right."
Rick Moen Edward Vielmetti: "Usenet is a right, a left, a jab,
rick@linuxmafia.com and a sharp uppercut to the jaw.
The postman hits! You have new mail."

Rick Moen wrote:

<<snip>>
> Dude --
>
> Please quote the parts of earlier postings to which you're responding.

This better?

> It's standard netiquette, so that people aren't obliged to go find prior
> articles, merely to stand some chance of figuring out what you're
> talking about.

I can't help your crappy newsreader doesn't give you a nice treeview.
Besides, I'm answering the guy for giving me a decent answer, which I
consider proper netiquette as well (if I had a dime for every answer I
posted without getting a "thanks, that worked" or something I'd be
rich, and you probably know what I mean).

>
> Figuring out how to do it correctly with your webmail thing is _your_
> problem, and nobody cares if this requires extra effort on your part.

Like I said, I can't help (or care) your crappy newsreader doesn't give
you a nice treeview, but now that I've (re-)located the option I will.

> (Only dead fish always go with the flow.)

Mostly they get eaten by bigger fish.

> Behaving cluelessly in this
> area is a good way to get widely killfiled (autoignored).

This was (I believe) my first message in this area, but hey, if you
want to overload your filters, go right ahead boyo. And I hope you show
a little more true ettiquette in real life, lest I have to feel sorry
for you.

The Loeki <the.loeki@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Please quote the parts of earlier postings to which you're responding.
>
> This better?

Indeed.

> I can't help your crappy newsreader doesn't give you a nice treeview.

Nobody should be obliged to go hunt down prior articles merely to have
some prayer of understanding what the blazes you're talking about. All
you're doing here is confirming that you simply don't _get_ what
netiquette's all about.

But, anyhow, don't do that for _me_. Do it because you don't want to
get written off as {clueless|a jerk|both} -- or don't, and get widely
killfiled as apparently prefer. Either way's perfectly fine.

--
Cheers,
Rick Moen Support your local medical examiner: Die strangely.
rick@linuxmafia.com

The Loeki <the.loeki@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Please quote the parts of earlier postings to which you're responding.
>
> This better?

Indeed.

> I can't help your crappy newsreader doesn't give you a nice treeview.

Nobody should be obliged to go hunt down prior articles merely to have
some prayer of understanding what the blazes you're talking about. All
you're doing here is confirming that you simply don't _get_ what
netiquette's all about.

But, anyhow, don't do that for _me_. Do it because you don't want to
get written off as {clueless|a jerk|both} -- or don't, and get widely
killfiled as you apparently prefer. Either way's perfectly fine.

--
Cheers,
Rick Moen Support your local medical examiner: Die strangely.
rick@linuxmafia.com

Rick Moen wrote:
> The Loeki <the.loeki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
<<SNIP>>
> Nobody should be obliged to go hunt down prior articles merely to have
> some prayer of understanding what the blazes you're talking about.

With a decent newsreader, you wouldn't have to.

> you're doing here is confirming that you simply don't _get_ what
> netiquette's all about.

Righto.

>
> But, anyhow, don't do that for _me_. Do it because you don't want to
> get written off as {clueless|a jerk|both}

I concede you're right about it, I mentioned that. It is not my
intention to offend. But it's rather laughable to have a multiple GiB
killfile because you're blocking people who *sometimes* forget to push
the right button (btw I've already reported this as a requested
feature, the "right" button is a little bit hidden in this app.).
Besides, I think your message could've been conveyed without the sting,
which was exactly my point.

Greetz

Loeki

Rick Moen wrote:
> The Loeki <the.loeki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
<<SNIP>>
> Nobody should be obliged to go hunt down prior articles merely to have
> some prayer of understanding what the blazes you're talking about.

With a decent newsreader, you wouldn't have to.

> you're doing here is confirming that you simply don't _get_ what
> netiquette's all about.

Righto.

>
> But, anyhow, don't do that for _me_. Do it because you don't want to
> get written off as {clueless|a jerk|both}

I concede you're right about it, I mentioned that. It is not my
intention to offend. But it's rather laughable to have a multiple GiB
killfile because you're blocking people who *sometimes* forget to push
the right button (btw I've already reported this as a requested
feature, the "right" button is a little bit hidden in this app.).
Besides, I think your message could've been conveyed without the sting,
which was exactly my point.

Greetz

Loeki

The Loeki <the.loeki@gmail.com> wrote:

> With a decent newsreader, you wouldn't have to.

I actually wasn't going to even acknowledge that attempt to make this be
about _me_, but -- although it's an irrelevant departure (yours) from
our topic -- you might be interested to know that the tin newsreader has
an excellent threaded view. That's what the "t" stands for.

And, as I was saying, it's clueless and rude to expect that anyone's
going to use the threaded view of that or any other newsreader to look
up prior articles, merely to understand what the heck you were saying.

> I concede you're right about it....

But...

> But it's rather laughable to have a multiple GiB killfile because
> you're blocking people who *sometimes* forget to push the right
> button....

1. _My_ killfile happens to be null, and has been for quite a few
years. I'm generally pretty lucky in where I hang out. This discussion
wasn't about _me_, you see.

2. People who merely do something mistakenly aren't likely to get
widely killfiled. On the other hand, as I could swear should have been
clear earlier, people who _keep_ doing annoyingly clueless things and/or
make excuses for them probably will be.

> Besides, I think your message could've been conveyed without the sting,
> which was exactly my point.

I'm not sure your extremely delicate sensibilities will do well on
Usenet, if you're moved to complain of "sting" in my extremely mild and
entirely benevolent attempt to point out how you can avoid sliding into
_other_ people's killfiles. No doubt the resemblance to a wild grasp
for the "tu quoque" fallacy is coincidental. But good luck with that,
anyway.

--
Cheers, "< > Kernel support for JAVA binaries (obsolete) (NEW)"
Rick Moen -- Linux kernel v2.2.19 configuration
rick@linuxmafia.com