On 7/19/05, jason henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nikolas Britton wrote:
> > On 7/16/05, Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Nikolas Britton wrote:
> >>
> >>>I was reading on wikipedia about RAIDs trying to pass the time and I
> >>>was thinking why not have RAID 5+5 or 5+5+5 levels,
Nikolas Britton wrote:
On 7/16/05, Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nikolas Britton wrote:
I was reading on wikipedia about RAIDs trying to pass the time and I
was thinking why not have RAID 5+5 or 5+5+5 levels, sure you waste
2/3th's of your space but wouldn't this be a killer setup f
On 7/16/05, Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nikolas Britton wrote:
> > I was reading on wikipedia about RAIDs trying to pass the time and I
> > was thinking why not have RAID 5+5 or 5+5+5 levels, sure you waste
> > 2/3th's of your space but wouldn't this be a killer setup for a
> > direct
Nikolas Britton wrote:
I was reading on wikipedia about RAIDs trying to pass the time and I
was thinking why not have RAID 5+5 or 5+5+5 levels, sure you waste
2/3th's of your space but wouldn't this be a killer setup for a
directory server where fast reads are of the utmost importance?
Actually
I was reading on wikipedia about RAIDs trying to pass the time and I
was thinking why not have RAID 5+5 or 5+5+5 levels, sure you waste
2/3th's of your space but wouldn't this be a killer setup for a
directory server where fast reads are of the utmost importance?
Would you add up the transfer rate
