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:[email protected] 2. http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions 3. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
