Correct, "inexpensive". That term came about back in the days when the norm was 80mb drums. Four 20mb drives were much cheaper at only $20K or so. Nowadays, it usually means "independent".
Yes, Scott. There really is no "Redundant" in a raid-0. Big & fast, yes. Reliable, no. Should call it AIDS (Array of Independent Drives System). The pun tells it all, it does not have long to live <grin>. In case anyone is interested I finally figured out just what that MTBF figure is. Not the number of hours the drive is designed to operate as most folks think*, but how many drives you can run and expect to have them fail on an average of one per hour. Still I am interested in how often folks here have experienced hard-drive failure, and with which type of drive (IDE, SATA, SCSI, other), and anyone else's experience with RAID systems. *Design life of a SCSI drive is 43,800 hours (5 years of 24/7 service). IDE and SATA drives are about 1/2 of that. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- Scott Loveless wrote: > graywolf wrote: >> Seems like folks here have a lot of hard drive problems, mine are very old >> and never a glitch. I did kick a drive when it was running once and it >> crashed (long story), since that was a 100 MEGAbyte drive so you can tell >> how long ago that was. >> >> And then there are all you people saying your RAID crashed. ????? >> >> Just what type of RAID are folks on the list using? Raid zero is asking for >> it, one better have a great back up scheme. Raid-1 or raid-10 should have >> all the data on the other drives for a restore. Raid-5 should be fine unless >> more than one drive goes at the same time. >> >> Of course I suppose that RAID has become a buzz word and many people are >> calling JBOD (just-a-bunch-of-drives, what I currently running) RAID which >> it is not. Anyway anyone who needs a computer tech's help should not be >> running anything more complicated than raid-1 (mirrored drives). >> >> Anyhow, as I am soon going to be setting up a raid-5 array using secondhand >> drives (first time setting one up for my own use), I would like to know just >> what kind of problems folks have been having. >> >> And now the test, what did the acronym RAID originally mean? >> >> >> > RAID means redundant array of inexpensive disks, or something like that > I think. My only experience with RAID is RAID 0 (which isn't really > RAID, IMHO). One of the two SCSI drives refused to post one day. Lost > it all. Doh! > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
