RAID level 0 is not fault tolerant and it is not data redundant.
RAID level 0 is still a RAID array
RAID level 0 is not fault tolerant and it is not data redundant.
RAID level 0 is still a RAID array
Now you're just trolling.
ps - there's a reason why you are so desperately underpaid. It's becoming more clear with each post.
Just to twist the knife a little bit, a factory worker makes close to double that.
Only because it uses a RAID controller. It was not an original RAID standard, just an implimentation of RAID technology for a purpose other than data protection, the only reason it got thrown in with the RAID standards is because it used RAID technology, not because it was a RAID. RAID 0 is NOT a RAID, it's just a NAME. There is NO redundancy in a RAID 0, data or otherwise. The disk themselves are not redundant just becuase they are both disk. They perform different task and therefore are NOT redundant.
Oh yeah, I can use bold tooooo
Originally posted by: MrPickins
And we have a winnar!
Both disks in a RAID 0 array perform the EXACT same task. They both store data. Therefore the disks are redundant. They do not store the same data, they also do not store parity or any error correcting bits, therefore they are not fault tolerant or data redundant. The disks in a RAID 2-6 array perform the EXACT same task. They both store data. Therefore the disks are redundant. They do not store the same data, but they do store parity or error correcting bits, therefore they are data redundant and fault tolerant.
The doubled up rear tires on a semi are redundant. If one blows out the other is there to continue supporting the load and reducing friction. Your spare tire for your car is redundant, but not fault tolerant. If one of your tires blow out, you must stop your car and manually replace the blown tire with the spare tire, resulting in a downtime.
So how does the Sony PS3 use a RAID? Do you think Sony uses a RAID? I'm thinking they don't. they're too stupid to use modern technology and standards. Face it - you don't have a freakin' clue what you are talking about.
Yet another reason why the PS3 sucks big balls along with sony in general. Apart from their ES line of audio of course.
Originally posted by: randay
Originally posted by: MrPickins
And we have a winnar!
Both disks in a RAID 0 array perform the EXACT same task. They both store data. Therefore the disks are redundant. They do not store the same data, they also do not store parity or any error correcting bits, therefore they are not fault tolerant or data redundant. The disks in a RAID 2-6 array perform the EXACT same task. They both store data. Therefore the disks are redundant. They do not store the same data, but they do store parity or error correcting bits, therefore they are data redundant and fault tolerant.
The doubled up rear tires on a semi are redundant. If one blows out the other is there to continue supporting the load and reducing friction. Your spare tire for your car is redundant, but not fault tolerant. If one of your tires blow out, you must stop your car and manually replace the blown tire with the spare tire, resulting in a downtime.
If redundant is just performing the same task, then the two 400gb drives I have in one of my computers that are not in RAID 0 are technically a RAID array?
There is no data redundancy or fault tolerance provided by RAID0.
The disk array is redundant because it contains two disks, usually identical.
They perform the same tasks. All disks perform the same tasks. Simply put, they read, write, store, etc... data.
Originally posted by: randay
Originally posted by: MrPickins
And we have a winnar!
Both disks in a RAID 0 array perform the EXACT same task. They both store data. Therefore the disks are redundant. They do not store the same data, they also do not store parity or any error correcting bits, therefore they are not fault tolerant or data redundant. The disks in a RAID 2-6 array perform the EXACT same task. They both store data. Therefore the disks are redundant. They do not store the same data, but they do store parity or error correcting bits, therefore they are data redundant and fault tolerant.
The doubled up rear tires on a semi are redundant. If one blows out the other is there to continue supporting the load and reducing friction. Your spare tire for your car is redundant, but not fault tolerant. If one of your tires blow out, you must stop your car and manually replace the blown tire with the spare tire, resulting in a downtime.
The disk in a Raid 0 store DIFFERENT data, therefore have different task. One stores data set A, and the other stores data set B. They are not redundant unless they store the SAME data. Duals on a semi are redundant, and like raid 1, where if one fails you still have a functional truck. However a car has 1 tire performing a specific task, just like a disk in a RAID 0. The two disk in a RAID 0 are no more redundant than the four tires on my car, each has its own task to perform, and failing to do so results in a non-functioning piece of hardware. You saying that the disk in a RAID 0 perform the same task is like me saying the four tires on my car provide the same task, which they do not.
The only RAID level that completely mirrors data is level 1, or mirroring. In RAID2 through RAID6, each drive stores a completely different set of data from each other drive. The data is still considered data redundant and fault tolerant because the data can be rebuilt on the fly from parity bits of the lost data. In the case of a RAID0 array suffering a drive failure, the functioning drive still contains 50% of the data, thought there is no parity bits so the data cannot be automatically rebuilt and therefore there is no fault tolerance. In a RAID1 array data is completely mirrored between both drives, if one drive fails, the second drive has a complete copy and no loss of data occurs.
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: randay
Originally posted by: MrPickins
And we have a winnar!
Both disks in a RAID 0 array perform the EXACT same task. They both store data. Therefore the disks are redundant. They do not store the same data, they also do not store parity or any error correcting bits, therefore they are not fault tolerant or data redundant. The disks in a RAID 2-6 array perform the EXACT same task. They both store data. Therefore the disks are redundant. They do not store the same data, but they do store parity or error correcting bits, therefore they are data redundant and fault tolerant.
The doubled up rear tires on a semi are redundant. If one blows out the other is there to continue supporting the load and reducing friction. Your spare tire for your car is redundant, but not fault tolerant. If one of your tires blow out, you must stop your car and manually replace the blown tire with the spare tire, resulting in a downtime.
If redundant is just performing the same task, then the two 400gb drives I have in one of my computers that are not in RAID 0 are technically a RAID array?
Just to clarify for you:
Both disks in a RAID0 array(or any level array for that matter) perform the same tasks. Since there are two disks the disk array is redundant. If one disk fails, the remaining disk still holds its set of data.
The two drives in your computer are not part of an array, they are seperate, so they may not be considered to be a RAID array, But they might be considered redundant since if one fails, the other will still work. However your computer will not be data redundant or fault tolerant. Unless you manually copy your data from one drive to the other. which is basically what RAID1 does.
Honest question here. Please answer honestly.
Have you ever lost a drive in any kind of striped or RAID storage situation? Or is what you are spewing learned from books and the intarweb?
I'm not sure I get your point. I'm up to snuff on the differences between RAID arrays and you don't seem to be arguing the point that both drives in a RAID 0 store completely different data. I'm also aware that every other RAID level provides data redundancy, by in one way or another duplicating the data. That makes the ARRAY redundant, not the individual disks.
By your own definition, they are part of an array:
They are interrelated because they are both hard drives storing data on a single computer.
So since they are part of an array, and the reason you gave for them not being a RAID array is that they aren't, why aren't they a RAID array?
Your first paragraph is incorrect. If one disk fails in a RAID0 array, the remaining disk doesn't hold any usable data.
The opposite of "redundant" is "essential", "necessary", or "required". Because all the disks are required in a RAID 0 array, there are no redundant components - there are no disks that are not essential for operation of the array. All other RAID levels have one or more disks that are not required for operation of the array.
Originally posted by: TreyRandom
I already tried using this logic on him, Thorny.
But what red blooded male can deny logic? I thought only females could do that.
Originally posted by: Thorny
Originally posted by: TreyRandom
I already tried using this logic on him, Thorny.
But what red blooded male can deny logic? I thought only females could do that.
Perhaps you're on to something, there! :light:
My main point is that redundancy is not equal to fault tolerance(or data redundancy). I gave a real world example a few pages back on how a RAID array could be considered redundant.
Compare a single 1TB drive to a RAID0 array of (2)500GB drives. say that a 1TB costs 500, and the 500GB cost 200 each. with the RAID0 array you now have a 1TB drive for 100 dollars less, and if one drive fails, you replace it for 200 dollars and still have your 1TB RAID array. If you go with a single 1TB drive, and it fails, you replace it for 500 dollars.
With that said a RAID0 array is not data redundant or fault tolerant. When one drive fails the array is broken, though technically you still have 50% of your data, but with no way to rebuild lost data, thought you can recover that 50%
I also gave a bunch of examples on how redundancy can apply to things that have nothing to do with data redundancy. power supplies, internet connections, even truck tires.
Are you trying to say that when a disk in a RAID array fails, that the data on the other disk automagically deletes itself or becomes corrupted? It is very possible to pull usable data off of said drive.
Not on a failed RAID 0 array, you cannot. The data is striped, meaning a little on drive A, a little on drive B, a little on drive C, a little on drive A, a little on drive B, a little on drive C. One drive fails, all data is unrecoverable. You must restore from backup. You can't recover the stripes of data - they are not able to be reassembled into anything meaningful. That's why you don't use RAID 0 unless you want to sacrifice reliability for sheer disk access speed.
Originally posted by: randay
My main point is that redundancy is not equal to fault tolerance(or data redundancy). I gave a real world example a few pages back on how a RAID array could be considered redundant.
Compare a single 1TB drive to a RAID0 array of (2)500GB drives. say that a 1TB costs 500, and the 500GB cost 200 each. with the RAID0 array you now have a 1TB drive for 100 dollars less, and if one drive fails, you replace it for 200 dollars and still have your 1TB RAID array. If you go with a single 1TB drive, and it fails, you replace it for 500 dollars.
With that said a RAID0 array is not data redundant or fault tolerant. When one drive fails the array is broken, though technically you still have 50% of your data, but with no way to rebuild lost data, thought you can recover that 50%
I also gave a bunch of examples on how redundancy can apply to things that have nothing to do with data redundancy. power supplies, internet connections, even truck tires.
Your wrong on both counts. The RAID array also requires a RAID controller (they're not free BTW) and supporting software. Your example does not explain how a RAID 0 is any more redundant than two different drives not in an array. What you said can be true with a JBOD set up as well.
The other examples you gave don't explain redundancy either. I can have two power supplies in my box, but if they don't power the same things, they are NOT redundant. I can have two internet connections at work, but if they are not hooked to the same networks, they are not redundant. Just because you have more than one of something does not make it redundant.
look up block size, or stripe size. If the file is small enough to fit into a single block, then the entire file exists in that block which means a single drive.
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