Actually for the storage history buffs,
RAID is for " Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks"
when one was competing with the IBM SLED's ( Single Large Expensive Disks )
and trying to be as reliable.
Well, now the little guys have greater than million hour MTBF's
and the SLED's are dinosaurs
Ain't technology wonderful
Ric KV1W
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Commo" <rick.commo@verizon.net>
To: <writelog@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 12:15
Subject: RE: [WriteLog] Writelog file concerns
> Just a couple of comments, although the documentation for any RAID
> controller should point a lot of this out.
>
> 1) RAID stands for Redundant Array of Individual Disks. There are several
> different types of RAID schemes, the most common being the following
> RAID 0 - striping data across 2 or more disks
> RAID 1 - mirroring data across 2 disks
> RAID 5 - striping data across disks, with parity (min of 3 disks).
> I could go on here, but realistically, this is what you tend to run
> into the most on the market place.
>
> 2) For the home user the cheapest, most hassle-free would probably
> be RAID 1, or mirroring. Cheap - because you only need one more disk
> to do it. Hassle-free - because if you had to you can "break" a
"mirror
> set" and use the surviving disk alone. If you replace a disk that
breaks
> the controller will "rebuild" the mirror set when the new disks is put
> in.
> This can be time consuming (hours if you are also using your machine),
> but
> at least in the end you have "protected" data again.
>
> 3) STAY AWAY from RAID 0. This is simple striping. Think of it this way,
> your two 6GB drives are combined into a single 12GB drive (as far as
your
> operating system is concerned), but the controller "stripes" the data
> across the two surfaces in chunks of, let's say, 32K bytes. If you
lose
> one drive you have a lost ALL your data. Striping is most often done
for
> (READ) performance.
>
> 4) Some good info can be found at:
> http://www.compinfo-center.com/stor/raid.htm.
>
> I should also mention that some people would argue with me that RAID 5 is
a
> better way to go, since you get good READ speeds and slightly more storage
> for the $buck. And their arguments are very valid in a lot of
> circumstances.
>
> However, for the home user RAID 1 is better because even if the controller
> were to break there is at least a chance that the one of the disks can
just
> be put on the default controller of the mother board.
>
> Cheers,
> -ricK7log
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: writelog-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:writelog-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Jerry Flanders
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 3:26 AM
> To: Julian Cleak; writelog@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [WriteLog] Writelog file concerns
>
>
> The last motherboards I purchased (in Sept 2002) had RAID capability
> built-in. I haven't implemented it (my luck with HDs has been pretty good
> over the years), but it is there in some modern motherboards for those who
> feel it is helpful. Price for this MB was similar to the others the dealer
> had in stock, so the RAID feature had no real extra cost (other than the
> price of the additional HD required to make it all work).
>
> RAID has several features, among which is redundant data storage on the
> second HD- a single failing HD will not necessarily shut you down. Details
> at:
>
http://www.msi.com.tw/html/e_service/techexpress/tech_column/raid/raid_1.htm
>
> Jerry W4UK
>
> At 10:52 1/28/03 +0000, Julian Cleak wrote:
> >Hi Bill
> >
> >In my limited experience of Computers the two most unreliable components
in
> >the base unit are the PSU and the HDD, different makes have different
> common
> >faults.
> >Fuji for example have a nasty habit of not being recognised by the system
> >bios where as Seagate go into clunking mode, Maxtor drives seen to just
> spin
> >up and stay running with no access to them. These are just some of the
> >problems we get here in the uk. We have tried lots of different
> manufactures
> >from lots of different suppliers but seems to make no difference. 1 yr
> seems
> >to be the critical time of operation hear. I did a report to our buyers
> >when tenders were due for renewal and our records showed that 78% of HDD
> >failures happened within 2 months of being 1 yr old.
> >I think that the only answer to the HDD problem is to make regular
backups
> >and, or fit a second HDD and keep duplicate files. I always tell our
> clients
> >that we can replace the programme files but the data files can cost up to
> >?1000 to retrieve, a CD-RW is about ?30.
> >
> > Best of Luck
> >
> > Julian
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Bill Turner" <w7ti@dslextreme.com>
> >To: <kk9a@arrl.net>
> >Cc: "'WriteLog'" <writelog@contesting.com>
> >Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 6:18 PM
> >Subject: Re: [WriteLog] Writelog file concerns
> >
> >
> > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 16:07:25 -0000, <kk9a@arrl.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >What happens if my hard drive fails?
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________
> > >
> > > This isn't quite the answer to your question, but I believe the best
> > > solution is not to have a hard drive failure in the first place.
> > >
> > > HD's are so inexpensive anymore, I think the best medicine is to
replace
> > > them every couple of years or so before they get to the point of
> > > failure. Modern HD's are amazingly reliable - when they are new. I
> > > have had a couple of HD crashes in my ten years of computing, and they
> > > were both on drives that had several years of use on them. HD's seem
to
> > > be good for around 3-5 years of ordinary use, so change them every two
> > > years or so and you should be ok.
> > >
> > > Incidentally, there are removable HD fixtures now that allow you to
swap
> > > a HD in about ten seconds. I just bought several of them on eBay for
> > > $6.99 each. Put all your contesting software on a new HD and only use
> > > it for contests. Something to think about.
> > >
> > > 73, Bill W7TI
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WriteLog mailing list
> > > WriteLog@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
> > >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >WriteLog mailing list
> >WriteLog@contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WriteLog mailing list
> WriteLog@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
>
> _______________________________________________
> WriteLog mailing list
> WriteLog@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
|