Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 wrote: > On Dec 31, 2009, at 4:09 PM, mike wrote: > >> 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 >> talking about. The drive is exactly the bottleneck in cases that I was >> speaking of. >> > > Just how many "roommates" do you have? I think the zoning and immigration > folks are going to come knocking on Mike's door. > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
On Dec 31, 2009, at 4:09 PM, mike wrote: 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 talking about. The drive is exactly the bottleneck in cases that I was speaking of. Just how many "roommates" do you have? I think the zoning and immigration folks are going to come knocking on Mike's door. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 talking about. The drive is exactly the bottleneck in cases that I was speaking of. On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:50 PM, tjpa wrote: > 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 bits packed so tightly the data rates went way up and the > speed advantage of RAID went poof. I won't bother to argue about RAID > serving up bits faster. I will argue that it does not matter. A modern drive > is a fast as the job requires. It is not worth any effort to go faster. The > drive is not the bottleneck. > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 bits packed so tightly the data rates went way up and the speed advantage of RAID went poof. I won't bother to argue about RAID serving up bits faster. I will argue that it does not matter. A modern drive is a fast as the job requires. It is not worth any effort to go faster. The drive is not the bottleneck. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
On Dec 31, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Stewart Marshall wrote: If a home user wants quicker starting Word or more FPS for games, get SCSI drives. Old man, that's yesterday's answer. Today speed demons use SSDs. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 tolerance for these things, but I haven't heard a lot of bad things about them; I think users understand they're for temporary storage. On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 2:00 PM, mike wrote: > Or now, SSD drives. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 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 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 there's the whole topic of whether a home user >> should consider RAID. If I see one more hobbyist build a RAID so that >> Word starts quicker or to get a few more FPS from a game I think I'll >> scream. >> > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 simultaneously. I had a RAID zero at one time because I could. Hobbyist is why we or they do it, I just wanted to have a little fun, I tried it for awhile and then went back to single drive OS. The biggest difference I saw was install time, it was cut in half, otherwise it wasn't that big an issue. On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Tony B wrote: > 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 there's the whole topic of whether a home user > should consider RAID. If I see one more hobbyist build a RAID so that > Word starts quicker or to get a few more FPS from a game I think I'll > scream. > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:24 AM, mike wrote: > > 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. > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 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 there's the whole topic of whether a home user should consider RAID. If I see one more hobbyist build a RAID so that Word starts quicker or to get a few more FPS from a game I think I'll scream. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 there's the whole topic of whether a home user should consider RAID. If I see one more hobbyist build a RAID so that Word starts quicker or to get a few more FPS from a game I think I'll scream. On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:24 AM, mike wrote: > 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. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 wrote: > There is actually a website devoted to the "Battle Against Any Raid 'F'"... > http://miracleas.com/BAARF/ > > "The reason for BAARF is that we’ve had it. Enough is Enough. For 15 years > a lot of the world’s best database experts have been arguing back and forth > with people (vendors and others) about the pros and cons of RAID-3, -4 and > -5. Cary Millsap has written excellent articles on RAID technologies that > should have stopped the use- and pointless discussions many years ago. Many > others have written splendid articles about it as well. Many. James Morle > and others have written books where they discussed the uselessness of RAID-F > stuff. It has been the same arguments, the same mistakes, the same > misunderstandings that have guided the discussions for all those years. The > same frustrations from people that knew RAID-F is not a good choice. The > laws of Nature are still solidly in place and are not going to be changed by > RAID-F vendors anytime soon. So we’ve decided to stop arguing and debating > with people about it. We will lower our blood pressure permanently by > refusing to have any more arguments about it." > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 alternatives, it's easy to say don't do xyz...we don't have any idea what you should do...but don't do xyz. Without alternatives, your arguments are meaningless. On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 8:17 AM, tjpa wrote: > There is actually a website devoted to the "Battle Against Any Raid 'F'"... > http://miracleas.com/BAARF/ > > "The reason for BAARF is that we’ve had it. Enough is Enough. For 15 years > a lot of the world’s best database experts have been arguing back and forth > with people (vendors and others) about the pros and cons of RAID-3, -4 and > -5. Cary Millsap has written excellent articles on RAID technologies that > should have stopped the use- and pointless discussions many years ago. Many > others have written splendid articles about it as well. Many. James Morle > and others have written books where they discussed the uselessness of RAID-F > stuff. It has been the same arguments, the same mistakes, the same > misunderstandings that have guided the discussions for all those years. The > same frustrations from people that knew RAID-F is not a good choice. The > laws of Nature are still solidly in place and are not going to be changed by > RAID-F vendors anytime soon. So we’ve decided to stop arguing and debating > with people about it. We will lower our blood pressure permanently by > refusing to have any more arguments about it." > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 wrote: > There is actually a website devoted to the "Battle Against Any Raid 'F'"... > http://miracleas.com/BAARF/ * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
There is actually a website devoted to the "Battle Against Any Raid 'F'"... http://miracleas.com/BAARF/ "The reason for BAARF is that we’ve had it. Enough is Enough. For 15 years a lot of the world’s best database experts have been arguing back and forth with people (vendors and others) about the pros and cons of RAID-3, -4 and -5. Cary Millsap has written excellent articles on RAID technologies that should have stopped the use- and pointless discussions many years ago. Many others have written splendid articles about it as well. Many. James Morle and others have written books where they discussed the uselessness of RAID-F stuff. It has been the same arguments, the same mistakes, the same misunderstandings that have guided the discussions for all those years. The same frustrations from people that knew RAID-F is not a good choice. The laws of Nature are still solidly in place and are not going to be changed by RAID-F vendors anytime soon. So we’ve decided to stop arguing and debating with people about it. We will lower our blood pressure permanently by refusing to have any more arguments about it." * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 12:38 PM, tjpa wrote: > 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 drives. When a modern drive detects a read error > it will go back to retry the read again and again and is often able to > recover the data. Data recovery has to be disabled when drives are used in a > RAID because RAID won't allow enough time for the data recovery to occur and > fails the drive before the read problem can be resolved. RAID is less > reliable than no RAID. > > Of course RAID is mucho macho and a great way to impress dumb bosses. > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 wrote: > 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. > > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 drives. When a modern drive detects a read error it will go back to retry the read again and again and is often able to recover the data. Data recovery has to be disabled when drives are used in a RAID because RAID won't allow enough time for the data recovery to occur and fails the drive before the read problem can be resolved. RAID is less reliable than no RAID. Of course RAID is mucho macho and a great way to impress dumb bosses. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 important though to many businesses as the one I mentioned. An hour of downtime equaled thousands of dollars if not more of loss where I was working, and this wasn't a huge shop. I'm still looking forward to seeing benchmarks regarding single drives being able to keep up with hundreds of users accessing the same database compared to RAID. On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 11:16 AM, tjpa wrote: > 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 sure that RAID would be one of the features of such a > system. Did it help? It took them a week to get their fancy-pants system > back in operation. > > If uptime is so important should you be using a mechanical hard drive? > Would SSD be better? What components of an uptime critical system are most > likely to fail? Drives are much more reliable than they used to be. What is > the reliability of the RAID controller? Of the power supply? Fans? The mobo? > Do you have multiple spares for everything? Does reliability increase or > decrease as the complexity of the hardware/software increases? Does complex > hardware/software increase or decrease the time it takes to restore service? > > I believe that the best strategy for maintaining uptime and reliability is > to keep it simple and to have competent help administering the system. > > Is there really anybody on this list who needs that kind of guaranteed > uptime? Would a momentary hiccup really be so traumatic? Or is it just > playing computer macho? > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 sure that RAID would be one of the features of such a system. Did it help? It took them a week to get their fancy-pants system back in operation. If uptime is so important should you be using a mechanical hard drive? Would SSD be better? What components of an uptime critical system are most likely to fail? Drives are much more reliable than they used to be. What is the reliability of the RAID controller? Of the power supply? Fans? The mobo? Do you have multiple spares for everything? Does reliability increase or decrease as the complexity of the hardware/software increases? Does complex hardware/software increase or decrease the time it takes to restore service? I believe that the best strategy for maintaining uptime and reliability is to keep it simple and to have competent help administering the system. Is there really anybody on this list who needs that kind of guaranteed uptime? Would a momentary hiccup really be so traumatic? Or is it just playing computer macho? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 wouldn't affect system performance). RAID is not a backup process/system. Back up separately, in addition to RAID. Yes, RAID controllers fail, just as any circuitry can fail, from the motherboard to the circuit board that is part of the hard drive itself. 100% uptime isn't possible without a whole lot more redundancy than just RAID. Do today's RAID systems have S.M.A.R.T monitoring such that preliminary warning is (sometimes) provided in time to do something about it? Fred Holmes At 08:02 PM 12/24/2009, t.piwowar wrote: >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 reliable technology, but we put up >with it because we had to. Today when I can get a 2TB drive for little >more than $100, using RAID is just silly. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 until the cost can be justified. On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 9:16 PM, t.piwowar wrote: > 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 want to use the "old, reliable" methods. Even >> when it no longer makes much sense. >> > > Thank you. The point is that one has to keep up with technology. Last years > answer is last years answer. Or in the case of RAID, that's s 1999. > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 want to use the "old, reliable" methods. Even when it no longer makes much sense. Thank you. The point is that one has to keep up with technology. Last years answer is last years answer. Or in the case of RAID, that's s 1999. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 8:18 PM, mike 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 > halt > and no work would get done. > > Except that modern benchmarks don't show any appreciable performance improvement from RAID. Maybe 1-3%. It used to be a huge difference when hard drives were slower and more expensive. 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 want to use the "old, reliable" methods. Even when it no longer makes much sense. Remember when this first came up? It was mostly because organizations like Google and Amazon (cloud, EC2, etc.) can't afford to use RAID any more. Too expensive, too unreliable, too many failures, and not much benefit, even potentially. Enterprises can certainly afford to do their own benchmarks. Have your enterprise done one lately? In fact, if you want high availability and high performance, you are either massively redundant, like Google, or not even having hard drives in every machine. Too much work to replace a machine with a hard drive in it with little benefit. -- John DeCarlo, My Views Are My Own * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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, t.piwowar wrote: > 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, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 reliable technology, but we put up with it because we had to. Today when I can get a 2TB drive for little more than $100, using RAID is just silly. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
What does the job if RAID is so bad? What was the replacement? On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Tony B wrote: > Or maybe because nobody can understand the question? :) > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 4:50 PM, mike 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. > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
Or maybe because nobody can understand the question? :) On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 4:50 PM, mike 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. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 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. First you'd have to know what RAID is for, you've never done hardware for an enterprise environment so it's not something you are familiar with, that's ok, but why keep talking about it? On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 2:35 PM, tjpa wrote: > 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 are doing don't use RAID." > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 are doing don't use RAID." * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 wrote: > 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 6 times the cost of the box plus drives. Yesterday another one > failed exactly the same way - the system simply resets the RAID. Thecus [the > RAID vendor] blame WD drive firmware, and after we contacted them they > removed the WD20EADS from their drive compatibility list. The problem seems > to be a conflict between the NAS software and the WD drive firmware, but it > is difficult to say who is to blame. We use the same WD20EADS drives in Mac > Pros and have no problems with them at all. This raises the question, what > kind of testing do Thecus do? It looks like they rely on user feedback for > their drive compatibility list, and don't extensively test themselves." > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
[CGUYS] RAID Revisited
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 6 times the cost of the box plus drives. Yesterday another one failed exactly the same way - the system simply resets the RAID. Thecus [the RAID vendor] blame WD drive firmware, and after we contacted them they removed the WD20EADS from their drive compatibility list. The problem seems to be a conflict between the NAS software and the WD drive firmware, but it is difficult to say who is to blame. We use the same WD20EADS drives in Mac Pros and have no problems with them at all. This raises the question, what kind of testing do Thecus do? It looks like they rely on user feedback for their drive compatibility list, and don't extensively test themselves." * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
