My itec professor is a genius

[randay]

Originally posted by: supafly

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: JDMnAR1

Originally posted by: randay
And this, my friends, is why certifications are completely useless. Its pathetic really. Kids with all these fancy certs and degrees fresh out of college and don't even know how to plug in a computer.

And just how did you divine that the professor in question holds any certifications?

The same way that I divined that he was a kid freshly out of college.

Nah my prof is at least in his 30s or 40s. FWIW he has a PHD.

...you...
uh....
...

yeah...

 

[TreyRandom]

Originally posted by: JDMnAR1

Originally posted by: franksta

Originally posted by: JDMnAR1

Originally posted by: supafly
Also, all RAID setups have built in fault tolerance. Isn't that special?

If by "special" you mean "incorrect". RAID 0 has no fault tolerance.

It also fails in the "R" part of RAID.

How so? By definition, you have multiple disks in an array, thus meeting the "redundant" portion. Fault-tolerance <> redundancy in and of itself.

Because RAID 0 contains neither redundancy nor fault-tolerance. An array of disks doesn't create redundancy unless the same information is on more than one disk. RAID 0 is for speed of data access, not for redundancy or fault tolerance.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: JDMnAR1

Originally posted by: franksta

Originally posted by: JDMnAR1

Originally posted by: supafly
Also, all RAID setups have built in fault tolerance. Isn't that special?

If by "special" you mean "incorrect". RAID 0 has no fault tolerance.

It also fails in the "R" part of RAID.

How so? By definition, you have multiple disks in an array, thus meeting the "redundant" portion. Fault-tolerance <> redundancy in and of itself.

Because RAID 0 contains neither redundancy nor fault-tolerance. An array of disks doesn't create redundancy unless the same information is on more than one disk. RAID 0 is for speed of data access, not for redundancy or fault tolerance.

So... I couldnt help but notice all those certs listed in your sig...

 

[toolboxolio]

Originally posted by: randay
And this, my friends, is why certifications are completely useless. Its pathetic really. Kids with all these fancy certs and degrees fresh out of college and don't even know how to plug in a computer.

guessing you don't have a degree

 

[Red Dawn]

Obviously your teacher is into it for the money not the "Gee Whiz" factor.

 

[TreyRandom]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: TreyRandom
Because RAID 0 contains neither redundancy nor fault-tolerance. An array of disks doesn't create redundancy unless the same information is on more than one disk. RAID 0 is for speed of data access, not for redundancy or fault tolerance.

So... I couldnt help but notice all those certs listed in your sig...

Yep. Been working in IT a while. Plus, I write certification training books and practice exams.

 

[Rock Hydra]

Originally posted by: franksta

Originally posted by: JDMnAR1

Originally posted by: supafly
Also, all RAID setups have built in fault tolerance. Isn't that special?

If by "special" you mean "incorrect". RAID 0 has no fault tolerance.

It also fails in the "R" part of RAID.

I wouldn't say it does since you use multiple hard drives instead of one regardless of the array setup.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: toolboxolio

Originally posted by: randay
And this, my friends, is why certifications are completely useless. Its pathetic really. Kids with all these fancy certs and degrees fresh out of college and don't even know how to plug in a computer.

guessing you don't have a degree

Nope, 4 credits short. I'd rather work then sit in a class not learning anything for a degree that will do nothing for me.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: TreyRandom
Because RAID 0 contains neither redundancy nor fault-tolerance. An array of disks doesn't create redundancy unless the same information is on more than one disk. RAID 0 is for speed of data access, not for redundancy or fault tolerance.

So... I couldnt help but notice all those certs listed in your sig...

Yep. Been working in IT a while. Plus, I write certification training books and practice exams.

Just FYI then:

Main Entry: re·dun·dant
Pronunciation: -d&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin redundant-, redundans, present participle of redundare to overflow -- more at REDOUND
1 a : exceeding what is necessary or normal : SUPERFLUOUS b : characterized by or containing an excess; specifically : using more words than necessary c : characterized by similarity or repetition <a group of particularly redundant brick buildings> d chiefly British : no longer needed for a job and hence laid off
2 : PROFUSE, LAVISH
3 : serving as a duplicate for preventing failure of an entire system (as a spacecraft) upon failure of a single component

I think the first definition qualifies.

 

[TreyRandom]

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra

Originally posted by: franksta

Originally posted by: JDMnAR1

Originally posted by: supafly
Also, all RAID setups have built in fault tolerance. Isn't that special?

If by "special" you mean "incorrect". RAID 0 has no fault tolerance.

It also fails in the "R" part of RAID.

I wouldn't say it does since you use multiple hard drives instead of one regardless of the array setup.

In what way is it redundant? In RAID 0, the data is striped across 2 or more disks. There is no second copy of the data, nor is there any parity information stored. It is no more redundant than putting in two hard drives in your computer and storing separate information on each disk.

 

[Rock Hydra]

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra

Originally posted by: franksta

Originally posted by: JDMnAR1

Originally posted by: supafly
Also, all RAID setups have built in fault tolerance. Isn't that special?

If by "special" you mean "incorrect". RAID 0 has no fault tolerance.

It also fails in the "R" part of RAID.

I wouldn't say it does since you use multiple hard drives instead of one regardless of the array setup.

In what way is it redundant? In RAID 0, the data is striped across 2 or more disks. There is no second copy of the data, nor is there any parity information stored. It is no more redundant than putting in two hard drives in your computer and storing separate information on each disk.

Wouldn't you say it's redundant to use 2 250 GB hard drives instead of 1 500 GB hard drive?

 

[esun]

You took the wrong class, man. Be prepared to learn absolutely nothing. I made the same mistake at one point.

 

[TreyRandom]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: TreyRandom
Because RAID 0 contains neither redundancy nor fault-tolerance. An array of disks doesn't create redundancy unless the same information is on more than one disk. RAID 0 is for speed of data access, not for redundancy or fault tolerance.

So... I couldnt help but notice all those certs listed in your sig...

Yep. Been working in IT a while. Plus, I write certification training books and practice exams.

Just FYI then:

Main Entry: re·dun·dant
Pronunciation: -d&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin redundant-, redundans, present participle of redundare to overflow -- more at REDOUND
1 a : exceeding what is necessary or normal : SUPERFLUOUS b : characterized by or containing an excess; specifically : using more words than necessary c : characterized by similarity or repetition <a group of particularly redundant brick buildings> d chiefly British : no longer needed for a job and hence laid off
2 : PROFUSE, LAVISH
3 : serving as a duplicate for preventing failure of an entire system (as a spacecraft) upon failure of a single component

I think the first definition qualifies.

But it's not an excess, nor is it similar, nor is it repetitive, nor is it... uh... no longer needed for a job.

The entire disk space is used to hold data, and uses no more space than is necessary in order to hold redundant or parity information (unlike other RAID levels). There is no similar data on any of the disks in the array. There is no repetitive data on any of the disks in the array. It is striped data, not redundant data.

 

[Leros]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: toolboxolio

Originally posted by: randay
And this, my friends, is why certifications are completely useless. Its pathetic really. Kids with all these fancy certs and degrees fresh out of college and don't even know how to plug in a computer.

guessing you don't have a degree

Nope, 4 credits short. I'd rather work then sit in a class not learning anything for a degree that will do nothing for me.

Thats what all college drop outs say.

Why'd you quit?

 

[TreyRandom]

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra

Originally posted by: franksta

Originally posted by: JDMnAR1

Originally posted by: supafly
Also, all RAID setups have built in fault tolerance. Isn't that special?

If by "special" you mean "incorrect". RAID 0 has no fault tolerance.

It also fails in the "R" part of RAID.

I wouldn't say it does since you use multiple hard drives instead of one regardless of the array setup.

In what way is it redundant? In RAID 0, the data is striped across 2 or more disks. There is no second copy of the data, nor is there any parity information stored. It is no more redundant than putting in two hard drives in your computer and storing separate information on each disk.

Wouldn't you say it's redundant to use 2 250 GB hard drives instead of 1 500 GB hard drive?

How is it redundant if you're using all 500 GB to store 500 GB of data?

 

[Leros]

Originally posted by: esun
You took the wrong class, man. Be prepared to learn absolutely nothing. I made the same mistake at one point.

The worst part is when you answer the correct answer but you lose points because your answer isn't the teacher incorrect answer.

 

[Rock Hydra]

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra

Originally posted by: franksta

Originally posted by: JDMnAR1

Originally posted by: supafly
Also, all RAID setups have built in fault tolerance. Isn't that special?

If by "special" you mean "incorrect". RAID 0 has no fault tolerance.

It also fails in the "R" part of RAID.

I wouldn't say it does since you use multiple hard drives instead of one regardless of the array setup.

In what way is it redundant? In RAID 0, the data is striped across 2 or more disks. There is no second copy of the data, nor is there any parity information stored. It is no more redundant than putting in two hard drives in your computer and storing separate information on each disk.

Wouldn't you say it's redundant to use 2 250 GB hard drives instead of 1 500 GB hard drive?

How is it redundant if you're using all 500 GB to store 500 GB of data?

I would say it's redundant to use 2 physical drives when you can use 1. Maybe my logic is off, maybe.

 

[TreyRandom]

From PCGuide:

RAID Level 0

Common Name(s): RAID 0. (Note that the term "RAID 0" is sometimes used to mean not only the conventional striping technique described here but also other "non-redundant" ways of setting up disk arrays. Sometimes it is (probably incorrectly) used just to describe a collection of disks that doesn't use redundancy.)

Technique(s) Used: Striping (without parity)

Description: The simplest RAID level, RAID 0 should really be called "AID", since it involves no redundancy. Files are broken into stripes of a size dictated by the user-defined stripe size of the array, and stripes are sent to each disk in the array. Giving up redundancy allows this RAID level the best overall performance characteristics of the single RAID levels, especially for its cost. For this reason, it is becoming increasingly popular by performance-seekers, especially in the lower end of the marketplace.

From Overclocker Cafe:

RAID 0 is the performance side of the house. RAID 0 or "striping" uses two drives in conjunction with one other for speed. Data is divided when it is written to both drives so that the workload is balanced and thus more efficient. The data is broken up into chunks or stripes when it is alternatingly stored. There is no redundancy of data with RAID 0. You should be using two identical drives if you are setting up a RAID 0 but this is not required. Two different drives can be used but at a small cost. Keeping in mind that the workload is being balanced, the computer sets the drives up to be equal. If you have an 80 and a 120 gb drive, RAID 0 will have your machine treat them as two 80 gb drives, ignoring the extra 40 gb of space on drive two.

From Wikipedia:

A RAID 0 (also known as a stripe set or striped volume) splits data evenly across two or more disks (striped) with no parity information for redundancy. It is important to note that RAID 0 was not one of the original RAID levels and provides zero data redundancy. RAID 0 is normally used to increase performance, although it can also be used as a way to create a small number of large virtual disks out of a large number of small physical ones.

From SearchStorage.com:

RAID-0: This technique has striping but no redundancy of data. It offers the best performance but no fault-tolerance.

From Answers.com:

A RAID 0 (also known as a stripe set or striped volume) splits data evenly across two or more disks with no parity information for redundancy. It is important to note that RAID 0 was not one of the original RAID levels, and is not redundant. RAID 0 is normally used to increase performance, although it can also be used as a way to create a small number of large virtual disks out of a large number of small physical ones.

From ExtremeTech.com:

RAID level 0 actually lies between JBOD and the higher RAID levels. You could say the RAID 0 isn't really RAID at all, since it's not redundant. RAID 0 formats the drives in such a way that writes to the drives are performed in alternating chunks. They're also read off the drive in alternating chunks as well. This process is known as "striping", and improves both read and write performance, though read performance gains more than writes. The reason for the performance gain is simple: as one drive streams data from the platter, the other drive can get its read head ready to send the next chunk of data. There's less waiting for access time, and the S-ATA bus is busier.

 

[TreyRandom]

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra

Originally posted by: franksta

Originally posted by: JDMnAR1

Originally posted by: supafly
Also, all RAID setups have built in fault tolerance. Isn't that special?

If by "special" you mean "incorrect". RAID 0 has no fault tolerance.

It also fails in the "R" part of RAID.

I wouldn't say it does since you use multiple hard drives instead of one regardless of the array setup.

In what way is it redundant? In RAID 0, the data is striped across 2 or more disks. There is no second copy of the data, nor is there any parity information stored. It is no more redundant than putting in two hard drives in your computer and storing separate information on each disk.

Wouldn't you say it's redundant to use 2 250 GB hard drives instead of 1 500 GB hard drive?

How is it redundant if you're using all 500 GB to store 500 GB of data?

I would say it's redundant to use 2 physical drives when you can use 1. Maybe my logic is off, maybe.

Redundant means the data exists in multiple places. Unless the disks are mirrored, there is no redundancy.

 

[mb]

Originally posted by: esun
You took the wrong class, man. Be prepared to learn absolutely nothing. I made the same mistake at one point.

It's a required class. As long as I get my A, I don't care.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: Leros

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: toolboxolio

Originally posted by: randay
And this, my friends, is why certifications are completely useless. Its pathetic really. Kids with all these fancy certs and degrees fresh out of college and don't even know how to plug in a computer.

guessing you don't have a degree

Nope, 4 credits short. I'd rather work then sit in a class not learning anything for a degree that will do nothing for me.

Thats what all college drop outs say.

Why'd you quit?

I did not drop out, I could sign up next semester and finish it if I wanted to. The class is from 12 noon to 3pm, I would have to take off a large chunk of time out from work. The prof is a senile(he strays from a subject and completely forgets to go back to it) old man teaching something I already have tons of real world experience(telecom) in and also is completely unrelated to my career goals. The degree I will get means nothing when put up against the 8 years of real IT experience I have. Basically I dont give a crap about the peice of paper, and Im happy that I actually had a few classes where I learned something.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: TreyRandom
Because RAID 0 contains neither redundancy nor fault-tolerance. An array of disks doesn't create redundancy unless the same information is on more than one disk. RAID 0 is for speed of data access, not for redundancy or fault tolerance.

So... I couldnt help but notice all those certs listed in your sig...

Yep. Been working in IT a while. Plus, I write certification training books and practice exams.

Just FYI then:

Main Entry: re·dun·dant
Pronunciation: -d&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin redundant-, redundans, present participle of redundare to overflow -- more at REDOUND
1 a : exceeding what is necessary or normal : SUPERFLUOUS b : characterized by or containing an excess; specifically : using more words than necessary c : characterized by similarity or repetition <a group of particularly redundant brick buildings> d chiefly British : no longer needed for a job and hence laid off
2 : PROFUSE, LAVISH
3 : serving as a duplicate for preventing failure of an entire system (as a spacecraft) upon failure of a single component

I think the first definition qualifies.

But it's not an excess, nor is it similar, nor is it repetitive, nor is it... uh... no longer needed for a job.

The entire disk space is used to hold data, and uses no more space than is necessary in order to hold redundant or parity information (unlike other RAID levels). There is no similar data on any of the disks in the array. There is no repetitive data on any of the disks in the array. It is striped data, not redundant data.

redundant describing the disk array, not the data on the disks. hence "redundant array of independent disks" and not "redundant array of independant data".

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Originally posted by: JDMnAR1
How so? By definition, you have multiple disks in an array, thus meeting the "redundant" portion. Fault-tolerance <> redundancy in and of itself.

O'rly? How is killing your effective MTBF adding redundancy?

 

[dighn]

these numbers are going up so quickly and steadily that it's almost pointless to be totally on top of them unless you have a very good reason to (e.g. shopping). as long as he's in the right neighborhood it's absolutely fine. after all that's not exactly what he/she teaches.

 

[TreyRandom]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Leros

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: toolboxolio

Originally posted by: randay
And this, my friends, is why certifications are completely useless. Its pathetic really. Kids with all these fancy certs and degrees fresh out of college and don't even know how to plug in a computer.

guessing you don't have a degree

Nope, 4 credits short. I'd rather work then sit in a class not learning anything for a degree that will do nothing for me.

Thats what all college drop outs say.

Why'd you quit?

I did not drop out, I could sign up next semester and finish it if I wanted to. The class is from 12 noon to 3pm, I would have to take off a large chunk of time out from work. The prof is a senile(he strays from a subject and completely forgets to go back to it) old man teaching something I already have tons of real world experience(telecom) in and also is completely unrelated to my career goals. The degree I will get means nothing when put up against the 8 years of real IT experience I have. Basically I dont give a crap about the peice of paper, and Im happy that I actually had a few classes where I learned something.

Either your "8 years of real IT experience" have failed you or your classes have failed you regarding the lack of redundancy in RAID 0 implementations.