On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:21:20 +0100 "Aley Keprt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >However, there is no redundancy in a RAID0 set, hence it's more commonly > > >referred to as striping. Actually, introducing RAID0 increases the > > >probability of a disk crash (and hence data loss without propper > > >backup) by the increase in disks. > > > > > > -Frode > > What a theory is this?!
No theory - simple math. > How can it increate a probility of a disk crash? Is it just because of using > two disks? > Is so, it is a nonsense. No. Disks come with a MTBF. If you add disks, this MTBF remains (almost) constant. The MTBF of the entire raid will then decrase when the number of disks increase. > 450MB means it can possibly fill my memory 5 times per second :-))) Provided your bus can handle it.... > > Yeah, thats true, but for my home system, i'm not too concened about > > redundency, although this m/board can do raid0+1, but i backup a few > > of the things i want to keep, erm... sometimes <g> its not worth the > > cost of loosing the extra disks, most stuff i can re-install > > > > it feels good ahinve it tho ;o), win2k boots nice and quick, and ive > > got loads of space to put my sam images > > What data loosing are you talking about? I think hard drive failure is not a > common problem > (compared e.g. to strange problems of M$ Anything <enter any year here>) > Or not? If you believe that, you have not been exposed to any real life disk crashs. If you have one or two disks you will rarely experience any disk crash. However, as you add drives, the total MTBF quickly decrements. That is why RAID was invented in the first place (keepign RAID 0 out of it). In my work as a administrator I have experienced about 15 disk crashes - ~10 of which were cheap PC IDE drives. 3-4 SCSI and one FW disks. -Frode
