> At 10:13 pm +0100 24/1/01, Aley Keprt wrote: > >> At 9:06 pm +0100 24/1/01, Aley Keprt wrote: > >> >If you use two disks without RAID0, you have the same data loss > >probability. > >> > >> Wrong. With RAID0, you lose the integrity of your *entire* filesystem when > >> _either_ of the disks crash. So you expect to potentially lose 100% of > >your > >> data every (MTBF/2) years. > > > >Of course. But this is software problem "How many data you lose when your > >disk crashes." > >We talked about hardware problems. > > A disk crash *is* a hardware problem! If/When a drive fails, you've almost > certainly lost all data on that unit. The key is that with a RAID0 > filesystem, one crash of any unit makes the data on all the *other* units > useless. > > Yes, the choice of filesystem makes it a software issue, but *you* started > talking about data loss probability and saying it was independent of RAID0. > That probability *is* increased with RAID0 as compared to two independent > filesystems. I think the reasons have been explained clearly enough already. > > Andrew
You shouldn't rely on "disk error = all data lost". I had a disk error, and I lost only one sector in one logical drive. It depends on what kind of disk error you encounter. As I wrote, if whole disk goes away at once, it can be repaired without data loss, since it's only in electronics. Aley
