> 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.
I wrote this already, so just for completeness: Higher data loss probability is caused by usage of two disks. It has nothing to do with RAID. If you use two disks without RAID0, you have the same data loss probability. > > 450MB means it can possibly fill my memory 5 times per second :-))) > > Provided your bus can handle it.... I don't have a bus. I can't afford it. I usually use buses public transport. :-))) :-))) > > 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). Have you ever heard about backuping? I practise this for years, and it helped me much! > 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 Oh, we don't use neither RAID nor UPS at work. I wonder why, but I can't change it. :-( Aley
