Re: Where are YOU now?
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
--
---Andrew Collier
http://mnemotech.ucam.org/ ---
--
r2+ T4* cSEL dMS hEn/CBBL A4 S+*++ C$++L/mP W- a-- Vh+seT+ (Cantab) 1.1.4
Re: Where are YOU now?
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
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
Re: Where are YOU now?
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 08:45:44 +0100 Aley Keprt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Disk error != disk crash. As I wrote, if whole disk goes away at once, it can be repaired without data loss, since it's only in electronics. Please, Aley! How many enterprise disk systems have you encountered? How many hard drives have you handled from SOL to EOL? A disk crash does not always depend on electronics. You may have a failure in one arm which tears the entire disk apart, oil spills from the spindle, failure of the spindle and even failure of the file system (at least two times this has happened with NT). And even if you send it away for a data extraction - do you have any idea what this costs? -Frode
Re: Where are YOU now?
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: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no 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
Re: Where are YOU now?
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:08:50 +0100 Aley Keprt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But why you still rely on disk crash = all data are lost ? This is the case with RAID0 (lost = lost from the RAID). -Frode
Re: Where are YOU now?
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:08:50 +0100 Aley Keprt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But why you still rely on disk crash = all data are lost ? This is the case with RAID0 (lost = lost from the RAID). -Frode I see the problem is that I don't see disk crash is equal to disk is completely lost. If you have some errors on a disk drive, and you can still use the rest of it, your RAID0 still works. Or not? Aley
Re: Where are YOU now?
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 08:45:44 +0100 Aley Keprt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Disk error != disk crash. As I wrote, if whole disk goes away at once, it can be repaired without data loss, since it's only in electronics. Please, Aley! How many enterprise disk systems have you encountered? How many hard drives have you handled from SOL to EOL? A disk crash does not always depend on electronics. You may have a failure in one arm which tears the entire disk apart, oil spills from the spindle, failure of the spindle and even failure of the file system (at least two times this has happened with NT). And even if you send it away for a data extraction - do you have any idea what this costs? Depends on who does it... -Frode
Re: Where are YOU now?
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:37:27 +0100 Aley Keprt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:08:50 +0100 Aley Keprt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But why you still rely on disk crash = all data are lost ? This is the case with RAID0 (lost = lost from the RAID). -Frode I see the problem is that I don't see disk crash is equal to disk is completely lost. If you have some errors on a disk drive, and you can still use the rest of it, your RAID0 still works. Or not? This is not a disk crash. This is a sector error. ALL disk have sector errors. In the old days, ie. pre 1986 or thereabouts, these used to be marked as 'bad blocks' in a block map on the disk. This was done from the factory. If you wanted to keep this map up to date, you had to run some software to check this for you. Disk nowadays still have block errors. However, some percentage of the disk is now reserved for this purpose. Whenever the disk detects a bad block it marks it as bad and substitute it with a block from the reserved area. If there is data on such a bad block, the disk usually detects the fault early enought to salvage the data. But sometimes you loose the data in such a bad block. This happens VERY rarely in my experience, I have only heard of this, not experience it myself. I suspected this once, but I used another controller and the disk worked nicely evre since (6 years now). When I talk about a crash I mean a crash which can not be repaired with conventional means. This can be a physical crash where the only way is to send it to a profesional compnay (www.ibas.com) or it might be a crash in the filesystem. A format or a low-level format ususlly solves this. -Frode
Re: Where are YOU now?
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:37:27 +0100 Aley Keprt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:08:50 +0100 Aley Keprt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But why you still rely on disk crash = all data are lost ? This is the case with RAID0 (lost = lost from the RAID). -Frode I see the problem is that I don't see disk crash is equal to disk is completely lost. If you have some errors on a disk drive, and you can still use the rest of it, your RAID0 still works. Or not? This is not a disk crash. This is a sector error. ALL disk have sector errors. In the old days, ie. pre 1986 or thereabouts, these used to be marked as 'bad blocks' in a block map on the disk. This was done from the factory. If you wanted to keep this map up to date, you had to run some software to check this for you. Disk nowadays still have block errors. However, some percentage of the disk is now reserved for this purpose. Whenever the disk detects a bad block it marks it as bad and substitute it with a block from the reserved area. Okay. I though disk crash refers to any error on disk drive, since if disk doesn't crash, it runs well. And when it doesn't run well, something bad must happened. If there is data on such a bad block, the disk usually detects the fault early enought to salvage the data. But sometimes you loose the data in such a bad block. This happens VERY rarely in my experience, I have only heard of this, not experience it myself. I suspected this once, but I used another controller and the disk worked nicely evre since (6 years now). When I talk about a crash I mean a crash which can not be repaired with conventional means. This can be a physical crash where the only way is to send it to a profesional compnay (www.ibas.com) or it might be a crash in the filesystem. A format or a low-level format ususlly solves this. -Frode The question is if this definition is only yours, or the standard one. I have never distinguished between several different disk errors. i.e. either disk is in good condition or not If not (i.e. at least one bad sector appeared), I consider this disk unusable and try to keep away from it ;-) Aley
Re: Where are YOU now?
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:25:04 +0100 Aley Keprt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question is if this definition is only yours, or the standard one. I have never distinguished between several different disk errors. i.e. either disk is in good condition or not Think of a car accident. If you can't drive the car away from the place, it's a crash. If you can, it's just a dent. :) If not (i.e. at least one bad sector appeared), I consider this disk unusable and try to keep away from it ;-) Bad sectors are on ALL disk, even today. You just don't see them. -Frode
RE: Where are YOU now?
yawn yawn yawn - any chance of playing this out in private folks?
{ -Original Message-
{ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
{ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Aley Keprt
{ Sent: 25 January 2001 10:32
{ To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no
{ Subject: Re: Where are YOU now?
{
{
{
{
{ On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 08:45:44 +0100 Aley Keprt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
{ wrote:
{
{ 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.
{
{ Disk error != disk crash.
{
{ As I wrote, if whole disk goes away at once, it can be
{ repaired without
{ data
{ loss, since it's only in electronics.
{
{ Please, Aley!
{
{ How many enterprise disk systems have you encountered? How many hard
{ drives
{ have you handled from SOL to EOL?
{
{ A disk crash does not always depend on electronics. You may
{ have a failure
{ in
{ one arm which tears the entire disk apart, oil spills from the spindle,
{ failure
{ of the spindle and even failure of the file system (at least two times
{ this has happened with NT).
{
{ And even if you send it away for a data extraction - do you
{ have any idea
{ what this costs?
{
{ Depends on who does it...
{
{
{ -Frode
{
{
{
RE: Where are YOU now?
Here Here!!! I didn't have the bottle to post that! ;-)
-Original Message-
From: Johnna Teare [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 5:22 PM
To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no
Subject: RE: Where are YOU now?
yawn yawn yawn - any chance of playing this out in private folks?
{ -Original Message-
{ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
{ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Aley Keprt
{ Sent: 25 January 2001 10:32
{ To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no
{ Subject: Re: Where are YOU now?
{
{
{
{
{ On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 08:45:44 +0100 Aley Keprt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
{ wrote:
{
{ 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.
{
{ Disk error != disk crash.
{
{ As I wrote, if whole disk goes away at once, it can be
{ repaired without
{ data
{ loss, since it's only in electronics.
{
{ Please, Aley!
{
{ How many enterprise disk systems have you encountered? How
many hard
{ drives
{ have you handled from SOL to EOL?
{
{ A disk crash does not always depend on electronics. You may
{ have a failure
{ in
{ one arm which tears the entire disk apart, oil spills from
the spindle,
{ failure
{ of the spindle and even failure of the file system (at
least two times
{ this has happened with NT).
{
{ And even if you send it away for a data extraction - do you
{ have any idea
{ what this costs?
{
{ Depends on who does it...
{
{
{ -Frode
{
{
{
Re: Where are YOU now?
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:45:38 + Dean Liversidge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Although i use my system a lot at home, the chance of me having a drive fail, is very very slim, if they fail, they do it straight away, or last for years, even tho my system is usually on 24/7, its still not a big issue. Actually, running 24/7 is usually better for mechanical equipment like hard drives. -Frode
Re: Where are YOU now?
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:35:52 +0100 (MET), you wrote: On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:45:38 + Dean Liversidge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Although i use my system a lot at home, the chance of me having a drive fail, is very very slim, if they fail, they do it straight away, or last for years, even tho my system is usually on 24/7, its still not a big issue. Actually, running 24/7 is usually better for mechanical equipment like hard drives. -Frode yeah, i think your right, tho some may disagree, hmm... MS sprint to mind, ... no i dont want to power save my hard drive every 15 mins arghhh =o) -- Dean Liversidge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where are YOU now?
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
Re: Where are YOU now?
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. What a theory is this?! How can it increate a probility of a disk crash? Is it just because of using two disks? Is so, it is a nonsense. Why is it nonsense? Suppose the probability of a disk crashing is Once in ten years If you do repeated testing using a bank of ten disks, you would expect (on average) a disk to crash every year. OR, if you're really unlucky, nothing happens for ten years and then they all explode at exactly the same time at the end of the tenth year (OBVIOUSLY this is unlikely). But one of the two must happen - EITHER the probability of ANY of the disks crashing is multiplied by ten because you have ten disks - i.e. IF you know the probability of a single disk crashing is once in x years then the probability of any one of n disks crashing is once in (x/n) years , OR the amount of data you lose at the end of the ten years is multiplied by ten - i.e. IF you know the probability of a disk crashing is once in x years then you expect to lose one disks' worth of data after x years - therefore if you have n disks the amount of data you lose after x years is n disks's worth In the first scenario, the probability of a disk crash is OBVIOUSLY increased if you have more disks In the second scenario, if you amortise those n disks crashing over x years you easily calculate that, in ONE year you will have effectively (n/x) disks crashing - which is the same as saying you will have ONE of those n disks crashing effectively every (x/n) years. You can see this is exactly the same statement as before 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! So either way you look at it, the probability that any one of your disks crashes is dependent upon the number of disks you have. As a second example, consider this. What's the probability of rolling a 6 on a single dice? It's 1/6 , right? Now what's the probability of rolling a 6 if you throw two dice simultaneously? Either of the dice can turn up 6 - hey, with two dice that means you're twice as likely to get a 6! - What's the probability of rolling a 6 if you throw 36 dice simultaneously? You actually have a 600% chance of throwing a 6! What that means is, on AVERAGE, you will expect to throw six 6s every time you toss all 36 dice. It's not nonsense, just basic probability theory. blah blah blah You really wrote a very long mail... And the only thing which you proved is that if you have many dices you have much higher possibility to throw '6'. But you don't need RAID to do it :-) So you waste your time here. 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? hard drive failure is more common than maybe you think... hard drive manufacturers five years ago were quoting mean time between failures (MTBF) that meant that, if you ran their drives practically non-stop for approximately three to five years, you would expect media errors, drive mechanical errors and bus errors to occur at least once. I know this because, among other things, our company supplies Audio-Visual equipment to telephone operators to record calls and supply live audio feeds, and the disks we started supplying three-to-five years ago and now starting to fail with alarming regularity...! And of course, if a drive starts to fail, it's only gonna get worse ... reformatting can only help /so much/ ... I would never use disks older than two or max. three years. At least because of insufficient capacity. So I am happy. Also I mean two real years, not two years of uninterrputed run. I usually sleep each day (or night ;-), and my computer is off then. And finally we were talking about loss of data. Not each bus error causes a loss of data. I have bus errors very often, since I bought just a stupid cheap motherboard. Loss of data which can be repaired by RAID is when your drive becomes physically damaged, or logically bad data is written to it. In the second case, the probability of error depends only on data size, not the number of disks. In the case the probability depends rather on number of heads. Better said if you buy now a 45MB disk, it is interanally the duplicate of three 15MB disks. So data loss probability is the same. This behaviour is caused by usual hard drive design. btw. Is better 133MHz bus with ATA100 drive - or - 100MHz bus with ATA66 :) (What did you
Re: Where are YOU now?
You should rather buy preformatted diskettes. ;-) -- 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: Dean Liversidge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 8:45 PM Subject: Re: Where are YOU now? On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:12:30 +0100 (MET), you wrote: 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 Although i use my system a lot at home, the chance of me having a drive fail, is very very slim, if they fail, they do it straight away, or last for years, even tho my system is usually on 24/7, its still not a big issue. the problem of data recovery in event of failure is a lot worse with RAID, but hell, its only like the time i booted to command prompt in windows and wanted to format a floppy, so i did the usual : format c: /u/q/s, then it asked my if i'm sure... durr.. of course i'm sure, i wouldnt have typed it if i wasnt. oh shit!!!... my floppy isnt 8,095 MB !! oops ;o), i think i'm a bit _too_ used to trashing systems at work and re-installing I was going to have a go at recovering the file system but decided it wasnt worth the hassle, especially since i put the system files on there aswell Any stuff i loose is just tough luck, thats the compromise of increase in speed. everything in lifes a compromise :o) Weve been fairly lucky at our place, i havnt had too many disks die so far on the servers, mainly a few SCSI ones, but they were in the the mail server, the system wasnt really too high quality on the cooling front, there was once ,when one of the drives was getting hammenerd that much, that it keeled the linux box with loads of scsi bus errors, and i had to down the server, hold it with the case off for about 5 minutes infront of the air-conditioning, to cool it down, then boot it back up again.. worked a treat . :) -- Dean Liversidge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where are YOU now?
At 9:06 pm +0100 24/1/01, Aley Keprt wrote:
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.
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.
Wheras with independent disks, you only lose half your data when one disk
crashes. If you say that both disks are expected to crash after MTBF years,
then that's already a 2x improvement over RAID0.
Have you ever heard about backuping? I practise this for years, and it
helped me much!
Yes, we do this a lot at work. But I daresay that restoring a few terabytes
of data would be pretty tedious if we ever needed to do it.
Andrew
--
---Andrew Collier
http://mnemotech.ucam.org/ ---
--
r2+ T4* cSEL dMS hEn/CBBL A4 S+*++ C$++L/mP W- a-- Vh+seT+ (Cantab) 1.1.4
Re: Where are YOU now?
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:06:20 +0100, you wrote: 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. you may have the same data loss probability per disk, but the RAID system creates 1 logical disk out of many physical disks, therefor, the probablity has to be worked out accros the one logical disk, because the data is split up accross the many disks, and cannot be recovered (from RAID 0) if any one drive fails in effect the probability of 1 drive maybe 1in10years, but that one drive is only 1/n of the single logical drive, n being the number of drives in the RAID array. 10 Drives set as RAID 0 failure rate of each individual drive = 1in 10 years 1 drive = 1/10 of logical drive each 1/10th of the logical drive has a probabilty of failure of 1/10yr 10 drives * 1/10 fails = 10/10 = 1/1 failure per year its all probability/statistics, and you can even get the chance of disk failure within the next 10 seconds as high 50% --- either it does or it doesnt !! same as the dice: As a second example, consider this. What's the probability of rolling a 6on a single dice? It's 1/6 , right? either you do roll a 6 or you dont :) one thing is fact, hard disks *do* fail, when is often not important, the fact that you can carry on when they fail maybe more important in some situations, i.e. business.. yes, home.. not usually I don't have a bus. I can't afford it. me niether, but i bet it'd be pretty cool going to work in your own bus :) Have you ever heard about backuping? I practise this for years, and it helped me much! Oh yes, but that doesnt recover the data since the last backup, ie the current days work :) 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. :-( oh well, your time will come ;o) -- Dean Liversidge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where are YOU now?
At 9:06 pm +0100 24/1/01, Aley Keprt wrote: 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. 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. Wheras with independent disks, you only lose half your data when one disk crashes. If you say that both disks are expected to crash after MTBF years, then that's already a 2x improvement over RAID0. Usually you only lose one sector or some clusters. If you surprisingly lose whole disk, it can be usually repaired, since data are ok, and there are problems with electronics etc. Have you ever heard about backuping? I practise this for years, and it helped me much! Yes, we do this a lot at work. But I daresay that restoring a few terabytes of data would be pretty tedious if we ever needed to do it. Regardles of how many bytes you want to keep up, you should backup. At least I still think. Andrew Aley
Re: Where are YOU now?
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. you may have the same data loss probability per disk, but the RAID system creates 1 logical disk out of many physical disks, therefor, the probablity has to be worked out accros the one logical disk, because the data is split up accross the many disks, and cannot be recovered (from RAID 0) if any one drive fails in effect the probability of 1 drive maybe 1in10years, but that one drive is only 1/n of the single logical drive, n being the number of drives in the RAID array. 10 Drives set as RAID 0 failure rate of each individual drive = 1in 10 years 1 drive = 1/10 of logical drive each 1/10th of the logical drive has a probabilty of failure of 1/10yr 10 drives * 1/10 fails = 10/10 = 1/1 failure per year its all probability/statistics, and you can even get the chance of disk failure within the next 10 seconds as high 50% --- either it does or it doesnt !! same as the dice: As a second example, consider this. What's the probability of rolling a 6on a single dice? It's 1/6 , right? either you do roll a 6 or you dont :) Please stop this stupid theory! If you have 10 disks you have ALWAYS possibility of 10 crashes per 10 years. Regardless you use RAID0 or not. I don't have a bus. I can't afford it. me niether, but i bet it'd be pretty cool going to work in your own bus :) sure. :-) -- Dean Liversidge Aley Keprt
Re: Where are YOU now?
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
RE: Where are YOU now?
-Original Message- From: Simon Cooke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 09:11 To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Where are YOU now? Just wondering... what's everyone up to these days? I've been out of touch for a while. :) So... Where d'ya live? Nuneaton in Warwickshire. Where I was the last time you phoned me Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? I work for Budgens Stores Ltd as the Systems Manager leading the Systems Management team. We are responsible for all IT systems serving the Budgens Estate. I agree with Allan Skillman - bloody A14!!! What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? I suppose it has to be the 12 shot repeating elastic band gun from www.iwantoneofthose.com. Either that or my 6CD auto changer for my car. Now I can play all my progressive house tunes as loud as I want. Si Luke ** This e-mail is private and confidential and is for the addressee only. You are prohibited from using, printing, distributing or disseminating it or any information contained in it, save to the intended recipient. **
Re: Where are YOU now?
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:12:30 +0100 (MET), you wrote: 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 Although i use my system a lot at home, the chance of me having a drive fail, is very very slim, if they fail, they do it straight away, or last for years, even tho my system is usually on 24/7, its still not a big issue. the problem of data recovery in event of failure is a lot worse with RAID, but hell, its only like the time i booted to command prompt in windows and wanted to format a floppy, so i did the usual : format c: /u/q/s, then it asked my if i'm sure... durr.. of course i'm sure, i wouldnt have typed it if i wasnt. oh shit!!!... my floppy isnt 8,095 MB !! oops ;o), i think i'm a bit _too_ used to trashing systems at work and re-installing I was going to have a go at recovering the file system but decided it wasnt worth the hassle, especially since i put the system files on there aswell Any stuff i loose is just tough luck, thats the compromise of increase in speed. everything in lifes a compromise :o) Weve been fairly lucky at our place, i havnt had too many disks die so far on the servers, mainly a few SCSI ones, but they were in the the mail server, the system wasnt really too high quality on the cooling front, there was once ,when one of the drives was getting hammenerd that much, that it keeled the linux box with loads of scsi bus errors, and i had to down the server, hold it with the case off for about 5 minutes infront of the air-conditioning, to cool it down, then boot it back up again.. worked a treat . :) -- Dean Liversidge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where are YOU now?
Is RAID 0 really two times faster? Depends, but there is usually always a certain amount of loss in multiplicator effect, but for all practical purposes it's twice as fast if you substitute one disk for two using RAID0. Provided, of course that there is enough bandwith on the bus and the CPU/RAM can keep up. 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?! How can it increate a probility of a disk crash? Is it just because of using two disks? Is so, it is a nonsense. Well, i wouldnt say twice as fast, a lot of it depends on the applications your running, but its definatly an improvement, especially since there both ATA100 spec :) on one benchmark it was doing about 450MB/sec sequential read, but i never take too much notice of benchmarks 450MB means it can possibly fill my memory 5 times per second :-))) 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? -- Dean Liversidge Aley Keprt btw. Is better 133MHz bus with ATA100 drive - or - 100MHz bus with ATA66 drive?
Re: Where are YOU now?
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:11:28 -0800 Thu, 18 Jan 01 23:30:18 GMT, Simon Cooke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (BTW: Generations 8.0 [which you'll see in stores in the UK] is MY baby ... and I accept no blame whatsoever for its bugs, given that I managed to fix over 200 of them for the latest release :)) My friend Geoffrey says I now have the latest V8 Generations, and I like it a lot. BUT it refuses to produce the word 'Baptised' in reports - I have to enter them all 'by hand'! :-) Dave
Re: Where are YOU now?
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. What a theory is this?! How can it increate a probility of a disk crash? Is it just because of using two disks? Is so, it is a nonsense. Why is it nonsense? Suppose the probability of a disk crashing is Once in ten years If you do repeated testing using a bank of ten disks, you would expect (on average) a disk to crash every year. OR, if you're really unlucky, nothing happens for ten years and then they all explode at exactly the same time at the end of the tenth year (OBVIOUSLY this is unlikely). But one of the two must happen - EITHER the probability of ANY of the disks crashing is multiplied by ten because you have ten disks - i.e. IF you know the probability of a single disk crashing is once in x years then the probability of any one of n disks crashing is once in (x/n) years , OR the amount of data you lose at the end of the ten years is multiplied by ten - i.e. IF you know the probability of a disk crashing is once in x years then you expect to lose one disks' worth of data after x years - therefore if you have n disks the amount of data you lose after x years is n disks's worth In the first scenario, the probability of a disk crash is OBVIOUSLY increased if you have more disks In the second scenario, if you amortise those n disks crashing over x years you easily calculate that, in ONE year you will have effectively (n/x) disks crashing - which is the same as saying you will have ONE of those n disks crashing effectively every (x/n) years. You can see this is exactly the same statement as before So either way you look at it, the probability that any one of your disks crashes is dependent upon the number of disks you have. As a second example, consider this. What's the probability of rolling a 6 on a single dice? It's 1/6 , right? Now what's the probability of rolling a 6 if you throw two dice simultaneously? Either of the dice can turn up 6 - hey, with two dice that means you're twice as likely to get a 6! - What's the probability of rolling a 6 if you throw 36 dice simultaneously? You actually have a 600% chance of throwing a 6! What that means is, on AVERAGE, you will expect to throw six 6s every time you toss all 36 dice. It's not nonsense, just basic probability theory. 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 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? hard drive failure is more common than maybe you think... hard drive manufacturers five years ago were quoting mean time between failures (MTBF) that meant that, if you ran their drives practically non-stop for approximately three to five years, you would expect media errors, drive mechanical errors and bus errors to occur at least once. I know this because, among other things, our company supplies Audio-Visual equipment to telephone operators to record calls and supply live audio feeds, and the disks we started supplying three-to-five years ago and now starting to fail with alarming regularity...! And of course, if a drive starts to fail, it's only gonna get worse ... reformatting can only help /so much/ ... btw. Is better 133MHz bus with ATA100 drive - or - 100MHz bus with ATA66 drive? Hmmm, let me see. 133MHz with ATA100 drive is better because - The bus runs at 133MHz instead of 100MHz and - The drive controller uses an ATA100 spec instead of an ATA66 spec :) (What did you expect me to say? ;OD ) Dave
Re: Where are YOU now?
Dude; kill files work on YOUR end, not mine :) I can't prevent nvg from sending an email to you even if I wanted them to :) Si - Original Message - From: David L [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 1:45 PM Subject: Re: Where are YOU now? why didnt i get the original email from cookie? has he killfiled me or something? - Original Message - From: Simon Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 12:16 PM Subject: RE: Where are YOU now? Simon Cooke wrote: Just wondering... what's everyone up to these days? I've been out of touch for a while. :) So... Where d'ya live? Nottingham, UK. Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? Wordcraft International Ltd., Derby. Currently porting a comms driver from Win32 to Linux, tho also doing some Win32 parallel port arbitration stuff for integrating our fax software with 3rd party printer apps. What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? Does a bigger house count? :-) Otherwise, the last electronic toy is probably my Nokia 8210. Si
Re: Where are YOU now?
From: Dean Liversidge [EMAIL PROTECTED] i've bin out off touch too, last i remember Si, you were working for microsoft, did you realise that they only employed poeple who put bugs in software ;o) Nah... I just decided to go and work for somewhere that would recognize my creative potential. (BTW: Generations 8.0 [which you'll see in stores in the UK] is MY baby ... and I accept no blame whatsoever for its bugs, given that I managed to fix over 200 of them for the latest release :)) Which makes me wonder... how the hell DID I end up at Sierra? :) Si
Re: Where are YOU now?
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:10:48 -0800, Simon Cooke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just wondering... what's everyone up to these days? I've been out of touch for a while. :) So... Where d'ya live? flitting between Norwich/Lowestoft/Skipton Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? Norwich Union, Life Pensions system. What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? could be: an ice lolly. or the 35mm camera or the new 'puter or the webcam or the complete set of Start Trek DS9 videos. or the pile of DVDs or the girl friend (although I didn't actually buy her). or the CDRadio for the car. Nev ps. any one wanna buy a new and boxed USB external CDRW.? 150GBP ONO mail me if interested. -- Nev - no longer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and getting no spam at all (yet) Webpage under construction at www,nfy53,demon,co,uk also hiding on ICQ
Re: Where are YOU now?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] So Si - what side of the pond are you these days? Still in america... Seattle still... seriously considering coming back for a while. But heck, I do that every couple of months :) Si
Re: Where are YOU now?
This is where in a comical aside, answer my own question...
From: Simon Cooke
Just wondering... what's everyone up to these days? I've been out of touch
for a while. :)
So...
Where d'ya live?
Seattle, Washington State, USA (you know, that bit at the very top left of
the US)
Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)?
Sierra OnLine, Inc. I used to be Lead Engineer on Generations (family tree
software), and now I'm waiting for a while ('cos we're reshuffling), but at
the moment I'm a Scruffy Underling Engineer on Print Artist. Soon I'll be
back to Lead Engineer Status on Hallmark Card Studio... but that won't be
for a month or two.
I'm also one of three people who make up Generic Films, and I'm working on a
screenplay, learning the ropes (by being a 'grip'), and doing all kinds of
fun stuff. Its been a while though.
What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently?
Creative Jukebox (DAP, I think it's called in the UK; here it's the Nomad).
I got a PocketPC a while back, and a home theatre sound system for my DVD
player, but I think the Nomad is the best gizmo I've had so far :) ...
either that or the POD I have hooked up to my electric guitar...
Si
Re: Where are YOU now?
- Original Message - From: Dean Liversidge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 11:11 PM Subject: Re: Where are YOU now? What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? not quite a gizmo, but just upgraded my PC, now i've got a loverly 80Gb RAID 0 disk setup :) Dean Liversidge This is great! Is RAID 0 really two times faster?
Re: Where are YOU now?
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:30:38 +0100 Aley Keprt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is RAID 0 really two times faster? Depends, but there is usually always a certain amount of loss in multiplicator effect, but for all practical purposes it's twice as fast if you substitute one disk for two using RAID0. Provided, of course that there is enough bandwith on the bus and the CPU/RAM can keep up. 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
RE: Where are YOU now?
Simon Cooke wrote: Just wondering... what's everyone up to these days? I've been out of touch for a while. :) So... Where d'ya live? Nottingham, UK. Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? Wordcraft International Ltd., Derby. Currently porting a comms driver from Win32 to Linux, tho also doing some Win32 parallel port arbitration stuff for integrating our fax software with 3rd party printer apps. What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? Does a bigger house count? :-) Otherwise, the last electronic toy is probably my Nokia 8210. Si
Re: Where are YOU now?
Hi All, Just wondering... what's everyone up to these days? I've been out of touch for a while. :) So... Where d'ya live? Kettering UK, although I think we will be moving to Cambridge as soon as we can afford it - Bloody A14 Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? ARM - Modelling solutions group. I've been recently working on a model of the first Jazelle enabled ARM core for Java Bytecode acceleration What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? Um, well we had a baby 10 days ago ;) Allan Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1; name=Attachment: 1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: -- +--+---+ | Allan Skillman | There are five flavours of resons, the | | EDA Group| elementary particles of magic : up, down, | | ARM | sideways, sex-appeal and peppermint. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - Terry Pratchett (Lords and Ladies) | +--+---+
RE: Where are YOU now?
What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? Um, well we had a baby 10 days ago ;) CONGRATS!!! Justin
RE: Where are YOU now?
Allan Skillman wrote: Um, well we had a baby 10 days ago ;) Blimey, congratulations Allan! Boy or girl? Got a name yet, or need us to help you with that? ;-) Si
Re: Where are YOU now?
Hi All, As they say It's a boy! - Rhys Eady Skillman. Best regards Allan On Thursday 18 January 2001 16:01, you wrote: Allan Skillman wrote: Um, well we had a baby 10 days ago ;) Blimey, congratulations Allan! Boy or girl? Got a name yet, or need us to help you with that? ;-) Si -- +--+---+ | Allan Skillman | There are five flavours of resons, the | | EDA Group| elementary particles of magic : up, down, | | ARM | sideways, sex-appeal and peppermint. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - Terry Pratchett (Lords and Ladies) | +--+---+
Re: Where are YOU now?
From: Allan Skillman [EMAIL PROTECTED] As they say It's a boy! - Rhys Eady Skillman. Congrats! But my recommendation? Take some of the vowels from Eady and move them over to Rhys where they're needed -- there's a severe shortage in that first name ;-) That's great news! May he keep you awake and get himself into trouble with other guy's daughters... even at daycare :) Simon
RE: Where are YOU now?
Simon Cooke wrote: Congrats! But my recommendation? Take some of the vowels from Eady and move them over to Rhys where they're needed -- there's a severe shortage in that first name ;-) pedantic Isn't Rhys a Welsh name, and IIRC, the letter 'y' is a regular vowel in Welsh? /pedantic }:- Si
Re: Where are YOU now?
on 1/17/01 9:10 AM, Simon Cooke at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where d'ya live? Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland. Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? Self employed, working on a few software projects for Mac and PC. What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? I would say my Creative Jukebox, but there's something wrong with the battery, so instead I'll say my Handspring Visor, which I bought ages ago, but I'm using it more and more these days. Gavin
Re: Where are YOU now?
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:19:18 +0100 (MET), you wrote: On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:30:38 +0100 Aley Keprt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is RAID 0 really two times faster? Depends, but there is usually always a certain amount of loss in multiplicator effect, but for all practical purposes it's twice as fast if you substitute one disk for two using RAID0. Provided, of course that there is enough bandwith on the bus and the CPU/RAM can keep up. 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 Well, i wouldnt say twice as fast, a lot of it depends on the applications your running, but its definatly an improvement, especially since there both ATA100 spec :) on one benchmark it was doing about 450MB/sec sequential read, but i never take too much notice of benchmarks 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 -- Dean Liversidge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where are YOU now?
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:15:43 -0800, you wrote:
This is where in a comical aside, answer my own question...
From: Simon Cooke
Just wondering... what's everyone up to these days? I've been out of touch
for a while. :)
So...
Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)?
Sierra OnLine, Inc. I used to be Lead Engineer on Generations (family tree
software), and now I'm waiting for a while ('cos we're reshuffling), but at
the moment I'm a Scruffy Underling Engineer on Print Artist. Soon I'll be
back to Lead Engineer Status on Hallmark Card Studio... but that won't be
for a month or two.
i've bin out off touch too, last i remember Si, you were working for
microsoft, did you realise that they only employed poeple who put bugs
in software ;o)
--
Dean Liversidge
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where are YOU now?
why didnt i get the original email from cookie? has he killfiled me or something? - Original Message - From: Simon Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 12:16 PM Subject: RE: Where are YOU now? Simon Cooke wrote: Just wondering... what's everyone up to these days? I've been out of touch for a while. :) So... Where d'ya live? Nottingham, UK. Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? Wordcraft International Ltd., Derby. Currently porting a comms driver from Win32 to Linux, tho also doing some Win32 parallel port arbitration stuff for integrating our fax software with 3rd party printer apps. What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? Does a bigger house count? :-) Otherwise, the last electronic toy is probably my Nokia 8210. Si
Re: Where are YOU now?
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:45:47 -, you wrote: why didnt i get the original email from cookie? has he killfiled me or something? erm, how can he killfile you, this is a mailing list, you should get everything thats sent to it, unless you stop it, shouldnt ya ??? -- Dean Liversidge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where are YOU now?
Just wondering... what's everyone up to these days? I've been out of touch for a while. :) Well, I'll start the ball rolling... Where d'ya live? Leeds, En-ger-land. Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? Green Flag Group, LAN technician with a bit of NT on the side. Currently replacing FDDI rings and token ring nightmare with a resilient gigabit switched solution. What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? Sony Z5 mobile, although despite parting with the cash it's still not in my sticky paw. So Si - what side of the pond are you these days? Dan.
Re: Where are YOU now?
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:10:48 -0800 Simon Cooke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just wondering... what's everyone up to these days? I've been out of touch for a while. :) So... Where d'ya live? Halden, Norway. Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? Ericsson Radar AS What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? Uh - does an Audi A6 2.5TDI count? -Frode -- ^ Frode Tennebø | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ^ | Ericsson Radar AS. | Isebakkeveien 49 | | N-1788 Halden | Phone: +47 69 21 41 47 | | with Standard.Disclaimer; use Standard.Disclaimer; |
RE: Where are YOU now?
Where d'ya live? Milton Keynes, UK. Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? Aculab UK. Trying to get my bloody switch/call/speech driver working on Linux 2.4... What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? Simpson's beer glass.
RE: Where are YOU now?
Where d'ya live? Blagdon, Brisol, UK. Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? Hothouse Creations Ltd, writing games and researching 3d on nextgen platforms What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? A machine that goes PING! - Ok, well maybe its the cocktail pourers for my alcohol collection :-)
Re: Where are YOU now?
- Original Message - From: Simon Cooke To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 10:10 AM Subject: Where are YOU now? Just wondering... what's everyone up to these days? I've been out of touch for a while. :) So... Where d'ya live? In the Netherlands, yep it is stil there Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? Regional newspaper, making adverts, testing several software-modules (Material manager, scannix, PC-AdProducer etc.) to completely digitise the process, in other words preparing for Direct to plate printing. What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? Rather boring but usefull a Afga Snapscan E20 (for use at home) and 2 Nokia 3211´s Robert van der Veeke aka RJV Graphics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Currently listening to : Napple Tale - Yosei Zukan - OGS Carefull sir, this place is as unstable as an Italian taxi driver who got stuck behind two old priests in a Skoda - Kryten
RE: Where are YOU now?
Where d'ya live? Harrogate , Uk Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? @ Home , programming Psx,PC,XBox Nuon (Soon PS2) Psx = Milli Miglia (SCi) , SpeedBall 2100 (BitmapBrothers) Pc/XBox = Rally Championship 2001 (Platinum Interactive) , Secret Project (Platinum Interactive) Nuon = Secret Project (BitmapBrothers) What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? Toilet roll holder with a built in radio :) Data cable for my Nokia Phone (now has a picture of me on it ):) Cw
RE: Where are YOU now?
-Original Message- From: Chris White [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 17 January 2001 11:59 To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: RE: Where are YOU now? Where d'ya live? [Dean Woodyatt] Cwmbran, Wales, UK Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? [Dean Woodyatt] Molynx Videmech, building, Testing (and installing soon :¬) the cctv systems for singapore underground's new extension What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? [Dean Woodyatt] girlyfriend brought me a palmV she got for £94 Brand new fantastic little gadget, dont know how I ever managed without it Cw
Re: Where are YOU now?
Just wondering... what's everyone up to these days? I've been out of touch for a while. :) So... Where d'ya live? Brno, Czech Republic (Brno is a town in south-east part of our country. It's near Vienna, the capital of Austria.) Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? Illusion Softworks (Take 2 Games) Currently working on "Hidden And Dangerous 2" for PC What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? Have I ever bought something cool? Two years ago I've bought a MMDS antenna to receive cable tv with no payments. :-) --- Aley Keprt
Re: Where are YOU now?
Simon Cooke wrote: Just wondering... what's everyone up to these days? I've been out of touch for a while. :)So...Where d'ya live? I'm in the Netherlands and I know I'm not the only one (in this newsgroup) to be there... Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? I work for TV News, I'm half of a 2 person cameracrew and I sometimes also edit the items together for airing. What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? EPSON 1640 scanner with Slide adapter, though the computerstore seems to have trouble locating a distributor for the darn thing... (And a little less cool to some but not to me, a couple of ZX spectrum +3's and 128K's...) Si Frans ;) Anyway, now that we've told you all about us, why don't YOU answer your own questions, Si ?
Re: Where are YOU now?
Simon Cooke schrieb: Just wondering... what's everyone up to these days? I've been out of touch for a while. :) So... Where d'ya live? Cologne / Germany Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? From home. Doing Print- and Webmedia. g on)? What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? My Olympus digicam. Si Wo from WoMo-Team
Re: Where are YOU now?
Where d'ya live? Southampton, UK. (Locks Heath, actually, east of Southampton, west of Fareham, kind of no-mans-landy) Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? Telsis Ltd., Fareham. Telecommunications software and hardware for Telcos and OLOs. Currently working on a system that integrates our 2048-line Telecommunications Switch with a web-based platform so our customers (Telecoms companies) and our customers' customers can view detailed statistics on calls (past and present), via the Intranet or Internet, and collate them for billing purposes. When I'm not doing that I'm usually blowing up PROMs or destroying huge Seagate drives. What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? Either... Sony MiniDisc MZR90 (shoulda held out for the MZR900 :( Nokia 8210 (psst, http://www.iobox.com ) Canon 650U scanner Titchytiny == cool :) Will be buying a powerball from http://www.firebox.com tonight, now THAT's pretty cool too! Dave
Re: Where are YOU now?
Just wondering... what's everyone up to these days? I've been out of touch for a while. :) Where d'ya live? Groningen, The Netherlands Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? Also in Groningen as a Delphi application developper. What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? Texas Instrument's Z80 based PDA, Avigo. Edwin Blink [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.designing.myweb.nl/samcoupe/
Re: Where are YOU now?
And what about you? Just wondering... what's everyone up to these days? I've been out of touch for a while. : So... Where d'ya live? Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? Si
Re: Where are YOU now?
Title: Re: Where are YOU now? Just wondering... what's everyone up to these days? I've been out of touch for a while. :) So... Where d'ya live? Sao Caetano do Sul, Brazil. A small city very close to Sao Paulo (about 10 meters...) Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? Sao Caetano do Sul, as applications engineer fo Delphi Automotive Systems. I'm moving to a smaller company now to design alarm systems, but it seems that I will have more fun there (and more money...) What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? My heart is betwwen two things: -Apple message pad 2000. (ok, it is used, but it still cool) -GM 6-71 roots compressor (a.k.a. Blower. Do you remember Mad Max ?) from a Detroit diesel engine. It will be placed over a Chrysler or Ford small block V8, and it will power a 1965 Simca. It is good for 600 Hp (ok, this one is used also, but it means TONs of fun burning rubber and scaring normal people driving more-plastic-than-metal politically correct cars...) Marcelo
Re: Where are YOU now?
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:10:48 -0800, you wrote: Just wondering... what's everyone up to these days? I've been out of touch for a while. :) So... Ok, since everyone having a go, why not... Where d'ya live? Worksop, England Where d'ya work (and what are you working on)? Insight Direct, trying to get our US parent company to give me su access to our server :o) shortly to be going for my CCNA What's the coolest gizmo you've bought recently? not quite a gizmo, but just upgraded my PC, now i've got a loverly 80Gb RAID 0 disk setup :) Si -- Dean Liversidge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
