Actually, I wasn't making the point that you were retarded, but I can see how it could have read that way.
:beer:
Actually, I wasn't making the point that you were retarded, but I can see how it could have read that way.
:beer:
LMAO hmmm... you make a LOT of assumptions. and calling me a "moron" does not make YOU look more intelligent, quite the opposite but you will understand that eventually.
let my brake it down for you since you have a lacking of some basic understanding about raid.
when purchasing/deploying/configuring raid subsystem you have three important criteria:
1) cost
2) performance
3) reliability
these three factors make a triangle:
reliability comes at the expanse (or expanse i'm not sure) of performance and viceversa.
if you want both performance and reliability they come at a higher cost (which is the case of raid5 although performance wise it is not that great and in some cases it's reliability is not enough).
for a home server raid 5 usually does not justify the cost, and you have to remember that sotware raid does not came for free (you need an entire system or at least large portions of the system resources).
"Ever heard of a server's hard disk failing? " :shocked: what?!?! never!!! :shocked: server's hard disk run forever and ever.
and one more thing, on top of what i said above is recomended to replace scsi hdd for mission critical server (which must operate 24/7) evey 5 years.
/edit
please read my previous post carefully and stop insulting people. didnt you'r mother taugh you better, have another :beer: but this one is on you
Firstly, "break".
Secondly, your "speed? in which application? and how much of a speed gain per $?" statement shows that if you actually had any practical, real-world, hands-on experience of RAID, then you'd know that RAID is not application-specific in terms of performance increases or decreases.
When you've finished regurgitating your highschool CS classes, I'm well aware of the planning fundamentals of RAID, thanks.
Why exactly would you run software RAID-5? That's completely pointless.
I think you have the wrong end of the stick.
Again, you have no real-world experience with RAID. You're regurgitating textbooks.
You've been here two months. You're in no position to tell others what to do around here.
Raid 5 has more to do with fault tolerance. It is not a replacment for backups..
To the OP (if he is still here after the red and green show) Carefull with the SX6000. I had one in 2k3 Enterprise server, and one windows update broke the card, it would lock the machine. After rebuilding the machine (new mobo, proc, ram, HDD, Video) it was fine, until I patched!!1!
I finally rolled the machine back to win2k adv. server and it's happily putting along with about 150 days uptime before I reboot (proxy behind a nat behind a corp firewall, not soo worried aobut patches).
I don't know if SBS 2k3 will break it or not, but should test this card before rolling it into production. Oh, and it is a beast of a card. I run it with 256 MB pc100 ram. It's nice a slick, but a bit warm in that case. Makes a dandy space heater in the winter.
To the OP (if he is still here after the red and green show) Carefull with the SX6000. I had one in 2k3 Enterprise server, and one windows update broke the card, it would lock the machine. After rebuilding the machine (new mobo, proc, ram, HDD, Video) it was fine, until I patched!!1!
I finally rolled the machine back to win2k adv. server and it's happily putting along with about 150 days uptime before I reboot (proxy behind a nat behind a corp firewall, not soo worried aobut patches).
I don't know if SBS 2k3 will break it or not, but should test this card before rolling it into production. Oh, and it is a beast of a card. I run it with 256 MB pc100 ram. It's nice a slick, but a bit warm in that case. Makes a dandy space heater in the winter.
Not only have you completely screwed up the quoting, you're still not making any sense. I've removed the names, as you've quoted yourself saying what I did.
i wish, that lesson was learned the HARD WAY
if you can find one textbook that said that AND you can prove that it is taught in a highschool i will eat my hat (highschool?!?!
are you sure?)yes, my type bad, BITE ME
if you dont know which applications gains a performance increase from a RAID STORAGE SUBSYSTEM or in other words FROM THE INCREASED STORAGE SUBSYSTEM PERFOMANCE THAT A ONLY A RAID CAN PROVIDE then i really cant help you.
"RAID is not application-specific in terms of performance increases or decreases"?!?!.... what the hell.... raid is only way to increase storage subsystem i/o (maybe there are other some exotic non-disc solution out there but i never heard of them).
ANY applications that rely heavily on high storage i/o would gain a performance increase or decrease in a direct relationship to the differences between the applications storage i/o need's to the i/o that raid can provide.
ie if the raid can provide only half of the applications i/o needs than that applications will run at only half of it's potential speed (provaided that there are no other bottle-neck in the system)
clarification(example):
4 disk raid10 will give you a different read performances than a 4 disk raid5 (read opereation from a raid5 does not require a XOR engine).
both offer fault tolerance, although at diffrent cost (the cost of the XOR engine in $ with hardware raid5 or the cost of the additional cpu, and ram resource with software raid5 which at the end of the day also cost $), and diffrent capacity (raid10 1/2 capacity, raid5 with 4 disk so 3/4 capacity)
4 disk raid10 will give you a different read performances than a 4 disk raid5 (read opereation from a raid5 does not require a XOR engine).
both offer fault tolerance, although at diffrent cost (the cost of the XOR engine in $ with hardware raid5 or the cost of the additional cpu, and ram resource with software raid5 which at the end of the day also cost $), and diffrent capacity (raid10 1/2 capacity, raid5 with 4 disk so 3/4 capacity)
Oh good God, it's like talking to a child. :roll:
I'm well aware that RAID improves the storage subsystem. The point I was making, you giant halfwit, was that RAID is NOT APPLICATION SPECIFIC. Thus, you won't have a situation where ONLY ONE application shows an improvement.
The ENTIRE subsystem will increase or decrease in speed, and that is my point.
You asked:
Once more. RAID IS NOT APPLICATION-SPECIFIC.
I have the distinct feeling that you are not understanding what I'm saying well enough. I suggest we leave this here, as I haven't got time to re-write everything I've said into simple English. This is not a derogatory comment about your English skills, merely that 90% of what I'm saying is getting lost in translation.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter