On Friday, April 5, 2002, at 03:34 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
Of course. As we all know SCSI cables never break. There must
be something
about the IDE command-set which causes copper wires to corrode. :-#
(I know this is a joke, but) actually there is. IDE has a
wonderful feature of only
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 12:25, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Of course. As we all know SCSI cables never break. There must
be something
about the IDE command-set which causes copper wires to corrode. :-#
(I know this is a joke, but) actually there is. IDE has a
wonderful feature of only
hi ya russell
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Russell Coker wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002 13:48, Alvin Oga wrote:
chunk size does NOT matter for raid5...
Chunk size does not matter for RAID-1, but does matter for other RAID levels.
humm ..thought was the otehr way ... time for me to go look at some
Since I'm feeling bored at the moment...
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 02:29:28PM -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
typically a minimum of 2 disks used for raid0 or raid1...
raid1(mirroring) protects against one disk failure
( one disk's capacity is used as a redundant copy and not for user)
On Wed, 3 Apr 2002 00:29, Alvin Oga wrote:
Chunk size does not matter for RAID-1, but does matter for other RAID
levels.
humm ..thought was the otehr way ... time for me to go look at some
raid source code i suppose .. when time permits
The chunk size determines physical location of the
On Wed, 3 Apr 2002 01:15, Dave Sherohman wrote:
Don't know where you got the typically 5 disks bit from. RAID5
costs you one drive's worth of capacity. Also, if I were to set up a
5-disk RAID5 for critical data, I'd go with 4 active disks, plus one
spare.
I've noticed that 5 disks seems
hi ya dave
ypppers on your comments...
another major point...
- raid protects aginst disk failure ... but if raid wont
come back online ... ( not mountable ) ... you lose all
data ...
-- make sure your data is backed elsewhere
and tested
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Dave
7 matches
Mail list logo
