But why you still rely on "disk crash = all data are lost" ?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bc.Aley [eili] Keprt - games & multimedia programmer
ICQ: 82357182 (evenings) *** phone: +420-68-5387035 (weekends)
private e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** http://get.to/aley
office: Illusion Softworks, Brno, CZ - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frode Tenneboe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Where are YOU now?
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:00:03 +0100 "Aley Keprt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > I think different way.
> > If you have 10 disks you have 10 disks which may crash.
> > That's okay.
> > But it has nothing to do with RAID.
> > I say it is a nonsense to say that RAID increases possibility of disk
> > crashes.
> > Using many disks increases that possibility, regardless you use RAID or
not.
> > RAID is innocent!!!!!
>
> I was not talking about RAID in general. I was talking about RAID0 which
> implies more disks than 1, hence the increase in probability of a crash,
> since RAID0 has no redundancy built in.
>
> Remember that if you store all your data on, say 2 disks with RAID0, and
> you have a disk crash, ALL your data is lost. If you have 2 independent
> disks, only half your data is lost with ONE disk crash. If you have 10
> disks in RAID0, ALL your data is still lost, while without RAID0, only
> 1/10th.
>
> -Frode
>
