|
Home > Archive > alt.certification.mcse > July 2002 > Raid question
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Thomas 2002-07-16, 5:25 pm |
| I'm going to make a striped set of 2 40gig hard drives. I just wanted to
know what chunk size to use to get maximum performance?
Thanks!
Tom
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
| |
| Delbert Matlock 2002-07-16, 7:25 pm |
| "Thomas" <Thomascs77@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'm going to make a striped set of 2 40gig hard drives. I just wanted to
>know what chunk size to use to get maximum performance?
That depends on what you are going to do with this stripe set. If it
will run a database, go with a larger stripe size. Bigger blocks of
data reading sequentially are faster than lots of small blocks. If
you are going to be doing general OS with it, then a smaller chunk
size is to your benefit. Otherwise you end up pulling data off the
disk that you don't need with each read operation.
When in doubt, stick with the controller defaults.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Remove the all uppercase letters from my e-mail address for replys (no SPAM)
Any UCE that does make it through will be reported to your service provider
and your service provider's service provider. Forgers will be hunted.
| |
| Jim Stumbo 2002-07-17, 1:28 am |
| a striped set is not raid.
"Thomas" <Thomascs77@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3d34a0e4_8@goliath.newsgroups.com...
> I'm going to make a striped set of 2 40gig hard drives. I just wanted to
> know what chunk size to use to get maximum performance?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News
==----------
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers
=-----
| |
| jfb2908 2002-07-17, 3:26 am |
|
"Delbert Matlock" <DelbertREMOVESPAM@Matlock.com> wrote in message
news:fkf9juo83gg7fn3heu33bb7nc
72plikngi@4ax.com...
> "Thomas" <Thomascs77@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm going to make a striped set of 2 40gig hard drives. I just wanted to
> >know what chunk size to use to get maximum performance?
>
> That depends on what you are going to do with this stripe set. If it
> will run a database, go with a larger stripe size.
Doesn't that depend on the database application ?
> Bigger blocks of
> data reading sequentially are faster than lots of small blocks. If
> you are going to be doing general OS with it, then a smaller chunk
> size is to your benefit.
Now I'm sure I read somewhere that the Windows Memory Manager works with 4K
pages and premeptively reads seven pages at once ? Or perhaps I was
dreaming. Which would make a size of 32K / 64K more appropriate.
> Otherwise you end up pulling data off the
> disk that you don't need with each read operation.
>
Well, yes, but that depends on how accurately you can 'preempt' the data
that you need next. You wouldn't need a huge percentage accuracy before
seek time is larger than the extended read time.
> When in doubt, stick with the controller defaults.
>
Good advice. Or test it first.
| |
| Webshrink 2002-07-17, 7:25 am |
|
"Jim Stumbo" <jstumbo@msn.com> wrote in message
news:urxK4xVLCHA.1336@cpimsnntpa03...
> a striped set is not raid.
>
Sorry there Jim, a striped set is Raid Level 0. It doesn't provide for fault
tolerance like Level 1 (mirroring) or Level 5 (striped set with parity), but
it is a raid level. It isn't highly used due to the lack of fault tolerance.
 Webshrink
| |
| James Dougherty 2002-07-17, 7:25 am |
| On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 23:38:34 -0700, Jim Stumbo <jstumbo@msn.com> wrote:
>a striped set is not raid.
>
RAID 0
Striping (without parity)
| |
| jfb2908 2002-07-17, 11:25 am |
| (R) edundant
(A) rrary of
(I) nexpensive
(D) isks
Where's the redundancy with a stripe set ?
"Webshrink" <webshrink@nospam1hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eBdZ8.29$m3.39398@news7.onvoy.net...
>
> "Jim Stumbo" <jstumbo@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:urxK4xVLCHA.1336@cpimsnntpa03...
> > a striped set is not raid.
> >
>
> Sorry there Jim, a striped set is Raid Level 0. It doesn't provide for
fault
> tolerance like Level 1 (mirroring) or Level 5 (striped set with parity),
but
> it is a raid level. It isn't highly used due to the lack of fault
tolerance.
>
> Webshrink
>
>
| |
| -Ðiamond-Ðan 2002-07-17, 11:25 am |
| In article < 3d359bad$0$232$ed9e5944@readin
g.news.pipex.net>, jfb2908
decided to open his mouth and remove all doubt by saying...
> (R) edundant
> (A) rrary of
> (I) nexpensive
> (D) isks
>
> Where's the redundancy with a stripe set ?
>
There is no "fault-tolerance redundancy". RAID 0 is a valid RAID
designation and is striping with no fault tolerance. Go take your pseudo
knowledge somewhere else!
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/sh...html?I=1491&p=2
I hate it when people who don't know jack try to correct those who are
right!
> "Webshrink" <webshrink@nospam1hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eBdZ8.29$m3.39398@news7.onvoy.net...
> >
> > "Jim Stumbo" <jstumbo@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:urxK4xVLCHA.1336@cpimsnntpa03...
> > > a striped set is not raid.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry there Jim, a striped set is Raid Level 0. It doesn't provide for
> fault
> > tolerance like Level 1 (mirroring) or Level 5 (striped set with parity),
> but
> > it is a raid level. It isn't highly used due to the lack of fault
> tolerance.
> >
> > Webshrink
> >
> >
>
>
>
| |
| Webshrink 2002-07-17, 12:25 pm |
|
"jfb2908" <jfb2908@hottmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d359bad$0$232$ed9e5944@r
eading.news.pipex.net...
> (R) edundant
> (A) rrary of
> (I) nexpensive
> (D) isks
>
> Where's the redundancy with a stripe set ?
>
Two physical drives doing the work for one logical drive, that's not
redundant? A bicycle is a redundant unicycle, you only need one wheel but
two wheels make it go faster. I think your confusing redundancy -vs- fault
tolerance. It's rather relative to what you are doing. If you setup a Raid5
with three drives and two of them fail, your no better off that if you were
in Raid0. It basically comes down to your backup procedures to CYA, RAID
only goes so far.
Webshrink
| |
| jfb2908 2002-07-19, 8:25 am |
| Redundancy is defined with reference to electronics thus :
"Duplication or repetition of elements in electronic equipment to provide
alternative functional channels in case of failure. "
(from www.dictionary.com but any reputable dictionary will do)
"Webshrink" <webshrink@nospam1hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lLhZ8.41$m3.42558@news7.onvoy.net...
>
> "jfb2908" <jfb2908@hottmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3d359bad$0$232$ed9e5944@r
eading.news.pipex.net...
> > (R) edundant
> > (A) rrary of
> > (I) nexpensive
> > (D) isks
> >
> > Where's the redundancy with a stripe set ?
> >
>
> Two physical drives doing the work for one logical drive, that's not
> redundant? A bicycle is a redundant unicycle, you only need one wheel but
> two wheels make it go faster. I think your confusing redundancy -vs- fault
> tolerance. It's rather relative to what you are doing. If you setup a
Raid5
> with three drives and two of them fail, your no better off that if you
were
> in Raid0. It basically comes down to your backup procedures to CYA, RAID
> only goes so far.
>
>
> Webshrink
>
>
| |
| jfb2908 2002-07-19, 9:25 am |
| [snip]
> There is no "fault-tolerance redundancy". RAID 0 is a valid RAID
> designation and is striping with no fault tolerance. Go take your pseudo
> knowledge somewhere else!
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/storage/sh...html?I=1491&p=2
>
> I hate it when people who don't know jack try to correct those who are
> right!
>
>
That's a hasty judgement based on..... nothing.......
This is from the Mylex website :
http://www.mylex.com/solutions/index.html
"Despite the name, RAID Level 0 is not actually RAID, unless it is combined
with other technologies to provide data and functional redundancy,
regeneration and rebuilding."
Or try this :
http://www.solumedia.com/raidinfo.htm
"the RAID Advisory Board definition of RAID... is based on a 1988 paper
titled "A Case for Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)" by David
A. Patterson, Garth A. Gibson, and Randy H. Katz and presented during the
ACM SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data in Chicago, Illinois. This
paper has become known as the Berkeley Paper and the RAID types defined are
known as Berkeley RAID levels. "
....
"RAID 0 is not a Berkeley RAID level as discussed in the above 1988 paper
because it doesn't offer any protection for hardware failure, but it does
fall under the guise of an array of disks and is considered to be a RAID
level. "
Note the word "considered". RAID 0 goes completely against the ethos of
RAID with regard to redundancy (definition given in my post above).
Or try this :
http://www.baydel.com/tutorial3.html
1997 RAID Advisory Board (RAB) RAID Classification and RAID Level Update
"RAID :A storage system with RAID capability can protect its data and
provide on-line, immediate access to its data, despite a single (some RAID
storage systems can withstand two concurrent disk failures) disk failure."
Oh, and I take exception to your comment about not knowing 'jack'. Should I
check your headers ?
| |
| -Ðiamond-Ðan 2002-07-19, 10:25 am |
| In article < 3d3826b5$0$8505$ed9e5944@readi
ng.news.pipex.net>, jfb2908
decided to open his mouth and remove all doubt by saying...
> [snip]
>
>
> > There is no "fault-tolerance redundancy". RAID 0 is a valid RAID
> > designation and is striping with no fault tolerance. Go take your pseudo
> > knowledge somewhere else!
> >
> > http://www.anandtech.com/storage/sh...html?I=1491&p=2
> >
> > I hate it when people who don't know jack try to correct those who are
> > right!
> >
> >
>
> That's a hasty judgement based on..... nothing.......
>
Actually based on University Instruction, Numerous Reference Books, A
host of online information sites, computer hardware and software
manufacturers, and general consensus of the networking profession!
You'll have quite an uphill battle to convince the world that RAID 0 is
not actually RAID. All you are arguing are finite details of word
definitions which do not always reflect what the real world uses.
Case in point: CMOS stands for Complimentary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor
and was so named because it was a separate chip on the motherboard which
provided startup instructions. Nowadays, the functions of the CMOS are
now integrated in other chips and motherboards do not have a dedicated
"Complimentary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor" anymore, yet techs will still
refer to the start-up BIOS menu as CMOS.
http://internal.vusd.solanocoe.k12....dy/motherboard.
htm
(NOTE: CMOS (Complimentary Metal Oxide Semiconductor) is actually a
misnomer in modern PC's, due to the fact that these chips are no longer
used. Everything is now contained in the BIOS. However, you still need
to have the ability to set up the system in the same way you did when
there was a separate CMOS chip. Since the purpose is the same, the name
CMOS Setup is still used.)
http://www.upgradingandrepairingpcs...ts/supp5_cd.asp
One of the things that's in this South Bridge is the CMOS RAM/clock
chip. That used to be a separate chip on a motherboard which contained
the memory which stored your system's setup. When you go into the BIOS
setup and you change things on those screens and save it, that's what
was stored in the so-called CMOS RAM chip. Well, we don't have that
separate chip anymore; it's now integrated into this South Bridge or
Super I/O chip.
<snip>
> Or try this :
>
> http://www.solumedia.com/raidinfo.htm
>
> "the RAID Advisory Board definition of RAID... is based on a 1988 paper
> titled "A Case for Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)" by David
> A. Patterson, Garth A. Gibson, and Randy H. Katz and presented during the
> ACM SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data in Chicago, Illinois. This
> paper has become known as the Berkeley Paper and the RAID types defined are
> known as Berkeley RAID levels. "
>
> ...
>
> "RAID 0 is not a Berkeley RAID level as discussed in the above 1988 paper
> because it doesn't offer any protection for hardware failure, but it does
> fall under the guise of an array of disks and is considered to be a RAID
> level. "
>
>
> Note the word "considered". RAID 0 goes completely against the ethos of
> RAID with regard to redundancy (definition given in my post above).
>
From this same site:
"...it does fall under the guise of an array of disks and is considered
to be a RAID level. RAID 0 is known as disk striping in which data is
spread, mapped, or interleaved across multiple disks in parallel to
speed up the data transfer rate substantially."
This site admits that striping is RAID 0 and then repeatedly refers to
striping as RAID 0 on the very same page:
"However, since a RAID 0 stripe set has no redundancy, if a drive fails,
all data in that stripe set is lost."
"A RAID 0 array can be of any size up to the maximum supported by the
operating system"
"RAID 0 arrays are used where data transfer rate is the primary factor,
safety is not a factor, and most data is sequential."
<snip>
> Oh, and I take exception to your comment about not knowing 'jack'. Should I
> check your headers ?
>
Feel free. I post with full knowledge that my headers are becoming
public. Besides, why would checking my headers have anything to do with
RAID?
| |
| Webshrink 2002-07-19, 10:25 am |
| Very good, but the word is redundant, not redundancy. Check you
dictionary.com on redundant and you will get:
adj 1: more than is needed, desired, or required.
Two terms with two different meanings that can be manipulated in any way a
person desires. For example, if you have two computers at one site doing the
same thing, they are redundant. Example 2, if you have two computers doing
the same thing at different locations, you have redundancy - hence fault
tolerence. The first example is redundant because if the site was blown up,
there is no Duplication or repetition of elements in electronic equipment to
provide alternative functional channels in case of failure. Whereas the
second example would cover your definition because the other site could
still function if the other site was blown up.
Webshrink
"jfb2908" <jfb2908@hottmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d381f27$0$8513$ed9e5944@
reading.news.pipex.net...
> Redundancy is defined with reference to electronics thus :
>
> "Duplication or repetition of elements in electronic equipment to provide
> alternative functional channels in case of failure. "
>
> (from www.dictionary.com but any reputable dictionary will do)
>
>
> "Webshrink" <webshrink@nospam1hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:lLhZ8.41$m3.42558@news7.onvoy.net...
> >
> > "jfb2908" <jfb2908@hottmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3d359bad$0$232$ed9e5944@r
eading.news.pipex.net...
> > > (R) edundant
> > > (A) rrary of
> > > (I) nexpensive
> > > (D) isks
> > >
> > > Where's the redundancy with a stripe set ?
> > >
> >
> > Two physical drives doing the work for one logical drive, that's not
> > redundant? A bicycle is a redundant unicycle, you only need one wheel
but
> > two wheels make it go faster. I think your confusing redundancy -vs-
fault
> > tolerance. It's rather relative to what you are doing. If you setup a
> Raid5
> > with three drives and two of them fail, your no better off that if you
> were
> > in Raid0. It basically comes down to your backup procedures to CYA, RAID
> > only goes so far.
> >
> >
> > Webshrink
> >
> >
>
>
| |
| Tom MacIntyre 2002-07-19, 10:25 am |
| On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 15:24:27 GMT, -Ðiamond-Ðan <diamondo@gofigure.com>
wrote:
snip
>Case in point: CMOS stands for Complimentary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor
>and was so named because it was a separate chip on the motherboard which
>provided startup instructions. Nowadays, the functions of the CMOS are
>now integrated in other chips and motherboards do not have a dedicated
>"Complimentary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor" anymore, yet techs will still
>refer to the start-up BIOS menu as CMOS.
Interesting choice of example, since the term CMOS actually refers to
the technology involved in the construction of said devices. The
technology predates this application of it, and it is used in many
other applications, but the term caught on as applying primarily to
this one particular application. Many hits from a web search for CMOS
yields this specific application rather than its original meaning.
It's kind of like when Steve Carlton was pitching, they called him
"Lefty". He was not the only left-handed pitcher, but when you said
Lefty, people always first thought that you meant Steve Carlton.
Tom
>
>http://internal.vusd.solanocoe.k12....dy/motherboard.
>htm
>
>(NOTE: CMOS (Complimentary Metal Oxide Semiconductor) is actually a
>misnomer in modern PC's, due to the fact that these chips are no longer
>used. Everything is now contained in the BIOS. However, you still need
>to have the ability to set up the system in the same way you did when
>there was a separate CMOS chip. Since the purpose is the same, the name
>CMOS Setup is still used.)
>
>http://www.upgradingandrepairingpcs...ts/supp5_cd.asp
>
>One of the things that's in this South Bridge is the CMOS RAM/clock
>chip. That used to be a separate chip on a motherboard which contained
>the memory which stored your system's setup. When you go into the BIOS
>setup and you change things on those screens and save it, that's what
>was stored in the so-called CMOS RAM chip. Well, we don't have that
>separate chip anymore; it's now integrated into this South Bridge or
>Super I/O chip.
>
><snip>
| |
| Keyboard Cowboy 2002-07-19, 12:25 pm |
| RAID 0 is a level:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tr...in/c11w2kad.asp
<quote>
RAID level 0 is disk striping. With disk striping, two or more
volumes—each on a separate drive—are configured as a
stripe set. Data written to the stripe set is broken into blocks that
are called stripes. These stripes are written sequentially to all
drives in the stripe set. You can place volumes for a stripe set on up
to 32 drives, but in most circumstances sets with two to five volumes
offer the best performance improvements over non-RAID volumes because
data from multiple drives is simultaneously accessed. Beyond this, the
performance improvement decreases significantly.
The major advantage of disk striping is speed. Data can be accessed on
multiple disks using multiple drive heads, which improves performance
considerably. However, this performance boost comes with a price tag.
As with volume sets, if any hard disk drive in the stripe set fails,
the stripe set can no longer be used, which means that essentially all
data in the stripe set is lost. You'll need to recreate the stripe set
and restore the data from backups. Data backup and recovery are
discussed in Chapter 14.
Note The boot and system volumes can't be part of a striped set. Don't
use disk striping with these volumes.
When you create stripe sets, you'll want to use volumes that are
approximately the same size. Disk Management bases the overall size of
the stripe set on the smallest volume size. Specifically, the maximum
size of the stripe set is a multiple of the smallest volume size. For
example, if you have three physical drives and if the smallest volume
is 50 MB, the maximum size for the stripe set is 150 MB.
To maximize performance of the stripe set, there are several things
you can do:
Use disks that are on separate disk controllers. This allows the
system to simultaneously access the drives.
Don't use the disks containing the stripe set for other purposes. This
allows each disk to dedicate its time to the stripe set.
You create a stripe set by completing the following steps:
In the Disk Management Graphical view, right-click an area marked
Unallocated on a dynamic disk and then choose Create Volume. This
starts the Create Volume Wizard. Read the welcome dialog box, and then
click Next.
Select Striped Volume as the volume type. Create the volume as
described previously in this chapter in the section entitled "Creating
Volumes and Volume Sets." The key difference is that you need at least
two dynamic disks to create a striped volume.
Once you create a striped volume, you can use the volume just like any
other volume. You can't expand a stripe set once it's created. Because
of this, you should carefully consider the setup before you implement
it.
</quote>
| |
| 70-228 2002-07-19, 12:25 pm |
| "Keyboard Cowboy" <thekeyboardcowboy@davesdaman.com> wrote in message
> RAID 0 is a level:
#snipped#
Hello Mrs Teacup, meet Mr Storm.
Lets now argue whether Butter is better than Margarine....
| |
| jfb2908 2002-07-19, 4:25 pm |
| RAID 0 is categorised as 'RAID' because it is convenient when talking about
configuration of arrays.
It has nothing else in common with RAID (that's any level from 1 to 50)
RAID 0 has nothing to do with redundancy.
Or should the 'R' stand for something else ?
"-Ðiamond-Ðan" <diamondo@gofigure.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.17a1fa0b7616db7298979f@news.epix.net...
> In article < 3d3826b5$0$8505$ed9e5944@readi
ng.news.pipex.net>, jfb2908
> decided to open his mouth and remove all doubt by saying...
>
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> > > There is no "fault-tolerance redundancy". RAID 0 is a valid RAID
> > > designation and is striping with no fault tolerance. Go take your
pseudo
> > > knowledge somewhere else!
> > >
> > > http://www.anandtech.com/storage/sh...html?I=1491&p=2
> > >
> > > I hate it when people who don't know jack try to correct those who are
> > > right!
> > >
> > >
> >
> > That's a hasty judgement based on..... nothing.......
> >
>
> Actually based on University Instruction, Numerous Reference Books, A
> host of online information sites, computer hardware and software
> manufacturers, and general consensus of the networking profession!
>
> You'll have quite an uphill battle to convince the world that RAID 0 is
> not actually RAID. All you are arguing are finite details of word
> definitions which do not always reflect what the real world uses.
>
> Case in point: CMOS stands for Complimentary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor
> and was so named because it was a separate chip on the motherboard which
> provided startup instructions. Nowadays, the functions of the CMOS are
> now integrated in other chips and motherboards do not have a dedicated
> "Complimentary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor" anymore, yet techs will still
> refer to the start-up BIOS menu as CMOS.
>
> http://internal.vusd.solanocoe.k12....dy/motherboard.
> htm
>
> (NOTE: CMOS (Complimentary Metal Oxide Semiconductor) is actually a
> misnomer in modern PC's, due to the fact that these chips are no longer
> used. Everything is now contained in the BIOS. However, you still need
> to have the ability to set up the system in the same way you did when
> there was a separate CMOS chip. Since the purpose is the same, the name
> CMOS Setup is still used.)
>
> http://www.upgradingandrepairingpcs...ts/supp5_cd.asp
>
> One of the things that's in this South Bridge is the CMOS RAM/clock
> chip. That used to be a separate chip on a motherboard which contained
> the memory which stored your system's setup. When you go into the BIOS
> setup and you change things on those screens and save it, that's what
> was stored in the so-called CMOS RAM chip. Well, we don't have that
> separate chip anymore; it's now integrated into this South Bridge or
> Super I/O chip.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Or try this :
> >
> > http://www.solumedia.com/raidinfo.htm
> >
> > "the RAID Advisory Board definition of RAID... is based on a 1988 paper
> > titled "A Case for Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)" by
David
> > A. Patterson, Garth A. Gibson, and Randy H. Katz and presented during
the
> > ACM SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data in Chicago, Illinois. This
> > paper has become known as the Berkeley Paper and the RAID types defined
are
> > known as Berkeley RAID levels. "
> >
> > ...
> >
> > "RAID 0 is not a Berkeley RAID level as discussed in the above 1988
paper
> > because it doesn't offer any protection for hardware failure, but it
does
> > fall under the guise of an array of disks and is considered to be a RAID
> > level. "
> >
> >
> > Note the word "considered". RAID 0 goes completely against the ethos of
> > RAID with regard to redundancy (definition given in my post above).
> >
>
> From this same site:
>
> "...it does fall under the guise of an array of disks and is considered
> to be a RAID level. RAID 0 is known as disk striping in which data is
> spread, mapped, or interleaved across multiple disks in parallel to
> speed up the data transfer rate substantially."
>
> This site admits that striping is RAID 0 and then repeatedly refers to
> striping as RAID 0 on the very same page:
>
> "However, since a RAID 0 stripe set has no redundancy, if a drive fails,
> all data in that stripe set is lost."
>
> "A RAID 0 array can be of any size up to the maximum supported by the
> operating system"
>
> "RAID 0 arrays are used where data transfer rate is the primary factor,
> safety is not a factor, and most data is sequential."
>
> <snip>
>
> > Oh, and I take exception to your comment about not knowing 'jack'.
Should I
> > check your headers ?
> >
>
> Feel free. I post with full knowledge that my headers are becoming
> public. Besides, why would checking my headers have anything to do with
> RAID?
| |
| jfb2908 2002-07-19, 5:25 pm |
| "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it
means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
[Alice through the Looking Glass]
| |
|
| Isn't it Ramdom Array of Independent Devices (RAID)
"jfb2908" <jfb2908@hottmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d359bad$0$232$ed9e5944@r
eading.news.pipex.net...
> (R) edundant
> (A) rrary of
> (I) nexpensive
> (D) isks
>
> Where's the redundancy with a stripe set ?
>
>
> "Webshrink" <webshrink@nospam1hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eBdZ8.29$m3.39398@news7.onvoy.net...
> >
> > "Jim Stumbo" <jstumbo@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:urxK4xVLCHA.1336@cpimsnntpa03...
> > > a striped set is not raid.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry there Jim, a striped set is Raid Level 0. It doesn't provide for
> fault
> > tolerance like Level 1 (mirroring) or Level 5 (striped set with parity),
> but
> > it is a raid level. It isn't highly used due to the lack of fault
> tolerance.
> >
> > Webshrink
> >
> >
>
>
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
| |
| 70-228 2002-07-25, 5:25 am |
| "Zool" <no@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Isn't it Ramdom Array of Independent Devices (RAID)
Whats random about it? Although you are right about the Independent. That
changed a while back. But all in all who cares. As long as everyone knows
what you mean by RAID this stuff really doesn't matter.
| |
| Chris L 2002-07-25, 9:25 pm |
| Sorry, guys, wrong. Redundant Array of Independent Disks
--
Chris L
"70-228" <Gibhal@kreunk.com> wrote in message
news:T2R%8.384703$om4.3403886@news.easynews.com...
> "Zool" <no@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > Isn't it Ramdom Array of Independent Devices (RAID)
>
> Whats random about it? Although you are right about the Independent. That
> changed a while back. But all in all who cares. As long as everyone knows
> what you mean by RAID this stuff really doesn't matter.
>
>
| |
|
| Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks
"Chris L" <chrisl317@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nQ209.328319$Im2.16748935@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> Sorry, guys, wrong. Redundant Array of Independent Disks
>
> --
> Chris L
>
>
> "70-228" <Gibhal@kreunk.com> wrote in message
> news:T2R%8.384703$om4.3403886@news.easynews.com...
> > "Zool" <no@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > Isn't it Ramdom Array of Independent Devices (RAID)
> >
> > Whats random about it? Although you are right about the Independent.
That
> > changed a while back. But all in all who cares. As long as everyone
knows
> > what you mean by RAID this stuff really doesn't matter.
> >
> >
>
>
| |
| jfb2908 2002-07-26, 3:25 am |
| You youngsters want to change everything !
I'm going for
(R)edundant
(A)rray of
(I)inexpensive
(D)isks
.... although the SCSI disks that you have to fit to servers these days are
*far* from inexpensive. It's all relative I suppose :-)
And the disks would only be truly independent if they were duplexed, but
that's for another thread.....
"Chris L" <chrisl317@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nQ209.328319$Im2.16748935@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> Sorry, guys, wrong. Redundant Array of Independent Disks
>
> --
> Chris L
>
>
> "70-228" <Gibhal@kreunk.com> wrote in message
> news:T2R%8.384703$om4.3403886@news.easynews.com...
> > "Zool" <no@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > Isn't it Ramdom Array of Independent Devices (RAID)
> >
> > Whats random about it? Although you are right about the Independent.
That
> > changed a while back. But all in all who cares. As long as everyone
knows
> > what you mean by RAID this stuff really doesn't matter.
> >
> >
>
>
| |
| Tom MacIntyre 2002-07-26, 8:25 am |
| On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 09:51:05 +0100, "jfb2908" <jfb2908@hottmail.com>
wrote:
>You youngsters want to change everything !
>
>I'm going for
>
>(R)edundant
>(A)rray of
>(I)inexpensive
>(D)isks
>
>... although the SCSI disks that you have to fit to servers these days are
>*far* from inexpensive. It's all relative I suppose :-)
>
>And the disks would only be truly independent if they were duplexed, but
>that's for another thread.....
>
Many places, such as here...
http://www.enhance-tech.com/t/raiddef.html
now accept both definitions. I think "Inexpensive" was first, bit I am
not 100% sure.
Tom
>
>"Chris L" <chrisl317@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:nQ209.328319$Im2.16748935@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>> Sorry, guys, wrong. Redundant Array of Independent Disks
>>
>> --
>> Chris L
>>
>>
>> "70-228" <Gibhal@kreunk.com> wrote in message
>> news:T2R%8.384703$om4.3403886@news.easynews.com...
>> > "Zool" <no@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > > Isn't it Ramdom Array of Independent Devices (RAID)
>> >
>> > Whats random about it? Although you are right about the Independent.
> That
>> > changed a while back. But all in all who cares. As long as everyone
> knows
>> > what you mean by RAID this stuff really doesn't matter.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
| |
| jfb2908 2002-07-26, 8:25 am |
|
"Tom MacIntyre" <tom__macintyre@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d414cce.42632737@news.wolf...
[snip]
> Many places, such as here...
>
> http://www.enhance-tech.com/t/raiddef.html
>
> now accept both definitions. I think "Inexpensive" was first, bit I am
> not 100% sure.
>
> Tom
>
What makes the disks Independent ?
Similarly, with regard to RAID 0, what makes such an array Redundant ?
|
|
|
|
|