Any evidence here? You just posted a story where you complained about anecdotal evidence being it...now that's all you got. Please, I've asked now twice for the benchmarks...anyone? I never said RAID was the only answer, that is Tom's job to be black and white, for cost, uptime, I/O...?
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 12:38 PM, tjpa <t...@tjpa.com> wrote: > On Dec 26, 2009, at 1:43 PM, mike wrote: > >> Uptime is important though to many businesses as the one I mentioned. >> > > The thought of Mike being in charge of a nuclear reactor is really scary. > > I should also mention that RAID has not kept up with the data robustness > features built into modern drives. When a modern drive detects a read error > it will go back to retry the read again and again and is often able to > recover the data. Data recovery has to be disabled when drives are used in a > RAID because RAID won't allow enough time for the data recovery to occur and > fails the drive before the read problem can be resolved. RAID is less > reliable than no RAID. > > Of course RAID is mucho macho and a great way to impress dumb bosses. > > > > ************************************************************************* > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > ************************************************************************* > ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
