On Sun, 2003-09-14 at 08:00, diego wrote: ... > That's not true, I'll show the most interesting cases in brief. Let say > you have a HD and it's running out of space, so you buy another one. > Then you'll have some programs/data in one and some in the other, but in > general you are only accessing one at a time (what a waste!! ;-) > > So what Raid 0 (raid for speed) would do is (for example) define a > virtual HD that has a sector of 32K when actually each drive has exactly > the half, so it reads/writes data joining sectors from both drives. That > way you have the same capacity as in the paragraph before but now with > the time a drive needs to give you a block you get 2. Useful, isn't it? > > The drawback is if one of both fails, you won't loose half the data but > ALL!! ...
which is why I question using RAID0 for most projects. It can be handy, no doubt, but for the typical workstation it's a lot safer to just use Unix's own mounting strategy. For instance, I have a workstation at work with two old and slow (9)GB SCSI disks. Performance is still okay because I've mounted / on one and /usr on the other, so many, maybe even most operations are able to use both disks (program from one, data from the other). -- Jack Coates Monkeynoodle: A Scientific Venture...
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
