Once again no answer...so what IS for the informed Thomas? Paint me a picture of how a mirrored drive among other things can reduce reliability? It's like a plumber saying I only keep ONE wrench in my tool kit because if I had two in there...wooboy they'd break for sure.
Oh I forgot, you refuse to answer. Must be some NDA or something you signed about some new killer tech out there that does what all the poor sap IT managers use RAID for. When those silly buzzwordy things like 'downtime' and 'speed' and 'reliability' matter. Let us know when the NDA expires and you can enlighten us. Mike On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Tom Piwowar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > For video work, with high-transfer rate, 1TB SATA drives selling for > peanuts, there is little reason for using a RAID. A TB is more than > enough to store 3 hours of uncompressed 24p 1920x1080 (HD) video. With > storage virtualization/replication you can span multiple physical volumes > to create larger virtual volumes. So there is no need to bother with > creaky old RAID. > > For reliability, we are way past the point where hard drives are the > weakest link. Just last week I was reviewing drive specs and noted MTBFs > of 300,000 hours (that is 35 years of 24/7 operation). These days I'm > seeing RAM and MoBos failing at about the same rate as hard drives. With > MTBFs like that, the complexity of RAID reduces reliability. > > Nope, RAID is for the uninformed. > > > ************************************************************************* > ** 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/ ** *************************************************************************
