Compaq RAID on 4.9-RELEASE?

[Tim Pushor]

Olaf,

Its an ML350. I know they are real cheap, however the alternative is 
clone based servers, so I'm real happy there is a budget line. Now there 
is no excuse not to have server class machines.

I should have checked the source myself. I see that 4.9-RELEASE uses an 
older version of ciss.c (1.2.2.9) that doesn't mention the 641 driver, 
but it is in STABLE.

BUT I have gotten bitten in the past with 'supported' equipment not 
being very well supported. On Compaq servers. So I was hoping for a 
testimonial.

I have used the old Smart Array controllers with good success. As for 
performance, the 641 should be much faster than the 532.

Thanks Olaf!
Tim




Olaf Hoyer wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Tim Pushor wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>We are going to be replacing one of our older systems here with a new
>>HP/Compaq server and want to buy a (cheap) supported hardware raid
>>adapter. Compaq/HP used to be so easy.
>>
>>The system we are looking at has either a Compaq 532 or 641 depending on
>>the processor speed (!). I see the 532 is supported, any word on the 641?
>>    
>>
>
>Hi!
>
>BTW:Which server model do you plan to buy?
>
>In  $FreeBSD: src/sys/dev/ciss/ciss.c,v 1.2.2.13 2003/12/13 07:56:28 ps
>Exp $
>
>both models appear:
> ciss_vendor_data[] = {
>    { 0x0e11, 0x4070, CISS_BOARD_SA5,   "Compaq Smart Array 5300" },
>    { 0x0e11, 0x4080, CISS_BOARD_SA5B,  "Compaq Smart Array 5i" },
>    { 0x0e11, 0x4082, CISS_BOARD_SA5B,  "Compaq Smart Array 532" },
>    { 0x0e11, 0x4083, CISS_BOARD_SA5B,  "HP Smart Array 5312" },
>    { 0x0e11, 0x4091, CISS_BOARD_SA5,   "HP Smart Array 6i" },
>    { 0x0e11, 0x409A, CISS_BOARD_SA5,   "HP Smart Array 641" },
>    { 0x0e11, 0x409B, CISS_BOARD_SA5,   "HP Smart Array 642" },
>    { 0x0e11, 0x409C, CISS_BOARD_SA5,   "HP Smart Array 6400" },
>    { 0x0e11, 0x409D, CISS_BOARD_SA5,   "HP Smart Array 6400 EM" },
>
>
>But I cannot comment on stability fo the models mentioned above...
>
>I have some boxes here, that use the smartarry 5 and 5iplus with 2003
>Server, and I had some old 360 g1 and g2, the g2 having the SA5 onboard,
>and those were rock-solid.
>
>But with the PCI ones I have no hands-on-experience, but it should be
>the same like the onboard ones. Regarding terms of data security, they
>are not the fastest, but reliable.
>
>(OK, could be that 5.2 and GEOM still have some rough edges, I had mine
>running 4.8-stable)
>
>HTH
>Olaf
>
>  
>