Except that they don't actually argue against RAID, only the RAID-F's.
The article I read actually advocates RAID10.
Conclusion? For safety and performance favor RAID10 first, RAID3 second,
RAID4 third, and RAID5 last!
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 10:17 AM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote:
There is
I still await the data that a single drive performs better than RAID when
multiple users are reading/writing. And by multiple I mean more than
several hundred.
This article you posted is an argument against certain types of RAID, not
against RAID itself. There is also nothing here that offers
http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/raid5-vs-raid-10-safety-performance.html#comments
RAID for safety and performance.
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 8:17 AM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote:
There is actually a website devoted to the Battle Against Any Raid 'F'...
http://miracleas.com/BAARF/
The reason for
I can't speak for Tom, but I don't believe he ever actually said this.
Even he will admit that the only way to get extra speed from a drive
is RAID. His objections, like mine, have more to do with fault
tolerance and backups. With the new RAID configs, the problem is being
addressed. Then again
RAID was designed for Enterprise, and business applications not home use.
If a home user wants quicker starting Word or more FPS for games, get
SCSI drives.
Stewart
At 12:29 PM 12/31/2009, you wrote:
I can't speak for Tom, but I don't believe he ever actually said this.
Even he will admit
John brought it up near the start of the thread. Speed was the only reason
we used RAID at the shop I was at, anyone who uses it for backup is an
idiot. We needed increased uptime...being down even 15 minutes could cost
thousands, and we needed speed so that over 300 users could access the data
Or now, SSD drives.
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Stewart Marshall
revsamarsh...@earthlink.net wrote:
RAID was designed for Enterprise, and business applications not home use.
If a home user wants quicker starting Word or more FPS for games, get SCSI
drives.
Stewart
At 12:29 PM
For raw speed, RAID is the way to go. The P2 cards Panasonic is
selling so well these days are just blocks of SD cards strung together
in a RAID. The more SD's, the faster the transfer speed (as well as
capacity). http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/P2/ . Of course, there's
virtually no fault
On Dec 31, 2009, at 1:54 PM, mike wrote:
John brought it up near the start of the thread. Speed was the only
reason
we used RAID at the shop I was at, anyone who uses it for backup is an
idiot.
The speed advantage went away when the drive's magnetic domains got
turned 90-degrees. With
Expand your knowledge a little. It might hurt at first, but you'll be
better for it. Just because it doesn't exist in your world, doesn't mean it
doesn't exist. You base all your anecdotes on single users, if you had
experience in multiple user environments, you'd have an idea of what we are
As I said, if you had any experience, you'd realize what you are saying is
wrong. There are larger companies out there with more than just a few mac
users as you my be used to working for.
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 3:11 PM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote:
On Dec 31, 2009, at 4:09 PM, mike wrote:
What do you do when uptime is important? Do today's drives never fail? With a
RAID mirroring system, you generally will have the system stay up on single
drive failure, and the bad drive can perhaps be swapped hot (although I would
still wait until 2 a.m. to do it so that the rebuild process
On Dec 26, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Fred Holmes wrote:
What do you do when uptime is important? Do today's drives never
fail?
When is uptime important? Was uptime important when M$ lost all the
files used to run the Sidekick cell phone system? That was running on
a storage array and I'm pretty
Changing the subject again and not answering the questions. To most home
users uptime isn't critical. I don't use RAID at home, my main system if I
had a hard drive failure of my boot drive would be back up in about 20
minutes from an acronis image I keep updated on an external drive.
Uptime is
On Dec 26, 2009, at 1:43 PM, mike wrote:
Uptime is important though to many businesses as the one I mentioned.
The thought of Mike being in charge of a nuclear reactor is really
scary.
I should also mention that RAID has not kept up with the data
robustness features built into modern
As I said, you've clearly had zero experience in any kid of elevated
environment where more than just a couple of macs were needed.
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 12:38 PM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote:
On Dec 26, 2009, at 1:43 PM, mike wrote:
Uptime is important though to many businesses as the one I
Any evidence here? You just posted a story where you complained about
anecdotal evidence being it...now that's all you got. Please, I've asked
now twice for the benchmarks...anyone? I never said RAID was the only
answer, that is Tom's job to be black and white, for cost, uptime, I/O...?
On
Here is a tale of woe recently posted at Macintouch...
After a few months one of our units reset itself wiping the entire
RAID5. The file data is still there, you just cannot access it since
the index is corrupted. We now have a data recovery service working on
this - the cost is well over
Good story of people who are clueless...too bad for these idiots. People
who don't know what RAID is for, shouldn't be using it, they might hurt
themselves.
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 11:09 AM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote:
Here is a tale of woe recently posted at Macintouch...
After a few months
On Dec 24, 2009, at 1:16 PM, mike wrote:
Good story of people who are clueless...too bad for these idiots.
People
who don't know what RAID is for, shouldn't be using it, they might
hurt
themselves.
If we move around a few of your words it will make more sense: People
who know what they
It's fine if you are afraid of stuff like this, spreading FUD though is
childish. Funny how nowhere in that little story they mentioned the part
where they were stupid and weren't backing up. As in, if they knew what
they were doing, they wouldn't be in this mess. I've been
waiting...months? A
Or maybe because nobody can understand the question? :)
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 4:50 PM, mike xha...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been
waiting...months? A year? for the answer about what does what RAID does to
replace it if it's so bad? Still no answer. I suspect because there is
none.
What does the job if RAID is so bad? What was the replacement?
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Tony B ton...@gmail.com wrote:
Or maybe because nobody can understand the question? :)
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 4:50 PM, mike xha...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been
waiting...months? A year? for
On Dec 24, 2009, at 5:16 PM, mike wrote:
What does the job if RAID is so bad? What was the replacement?
I suggest using a hard drive. Plain and simple. 2TB drives cost little
more than $100.
*
** List info,
On Dec 24, 2009, at 4:50 PM, mike wrote:
spreading FUD though is childish.
Your faith in this old, worn out technology is touching, but handing
out bad advice is reprehensible.
We used RAID back long ago when we had to. In the old days when drives
were slow and small. It was never a
Like I said, you've never had to work in enterprise level areas. You need a
LOT of I/O when 300 users are all hitting the same sql database, reading and
writing to it all at once. A hard drive? The network would grind to a halt
and no work would get done.
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 6:03 PM,
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 8:18 PM, mike xha...@gmail.com wrote:
Like I said, you've never had to work in enterprise level areas. You need
a
LOT of I/O when 300 users are all hitting the same sql database, reading
and
writing to it all at once. A hard drive? The network would grind to a
On Dec 24, 2009, at 9:59 PM, John DeCarlo wrote:
And please don't use enterprise as if it were an example of good
engineering. I work at the enterprise level and have for years and
I see
more stupid things done by big enterprises with big IT staffs than
in most
SMBs. So many people there
I'd like to see the benchmarks, anything that works better is better. I
just don't see how a single drive can keep up with hundreds and hundreds of
users hitting the drive compared to RAID. Also to note is cost, there may
be better things than RAID that cost 10x as much...so RAID is the answer
29 matches
Mail list logo
