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