well, you mean on RAID5 then, coz there's probably no math in
   reconstructing a RAID1.
   Why would the math on SATA be less reliable than on SCSI???
   Where d'you read that anyway??
   Jeff Mohler wrote:

Did you know that most "oh my god" RAID failures happen during the
reconstruction of a failed drive?

.Especially on SATA as the non-recoverable-bit-error math is so much
easier to run into.

I think..that on a 500G drive, there are enough bits to read/write
that mathematically you could run into a double-drive failure every
time you have to recover.  Although, statistically it wouldnt happen
every time.

No raid solves any backup problem.

  

I've been using those Intel RAID with Windows for a couple of years now and
it really helped solve my backup problem.
I think this is simply great, no worries of data loss anymore (at least
coming from hardware failure).

-nodje
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[2]http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [3]"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

References

   1. mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
   2. http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
   3. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply via email to