HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!
You find a way to do that and your a rich rich man. If a disk in RAID 0 fails you are screwed and have 0.000% of your data.
HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!
You find a way to do that and your a rich rich man. If a disk in RAID 0 fails you are screwed and have 0.000% of your data.
I realize that. But how many files will you be able to recover? Very few, if any. Sure, you can get a whole bunch of <32K or <16K or <64K files... if they're not split... and you can reconstruct the allocation table so you can determine what those files are... but of what use is that, really?
I use 128MB stripes so I can get half my porn back if I have a drive failure, doesn't everybody?
Originally posted by: Thorny
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.
Software RAID is free.
Also I did not take into account the cost of a RAID controller, you are right, that could affect the cost differences. But they are usually integrated these days. A RAID array is is more reduntant then two different drives because the RAID array is an array which contains 2 drives. A single drive is an array of one drive(don't know if that technically qualifies as an array though). Yes it is true for JBOD as well, what I said.edit: didnt mean to say RAID0, meant RAID arrays
I was referring specifically to redundant power supplies and internet connections. Such things do exist and thats what I meant. I did not mean two seperate power supplies which supply power for two seperate things. or the other thing you said about the internet connections. You are right though, they do have to be grouped together to be redundant.
Originally posted by: Thorny
I use 128MB stripes so I can get half my porn back if I have a drive failure, doesn't everybody?
But what about HD porn
Does that change the facts or are you just picking at straws? Can you or can you not retrieve data off of a functioning disk from a failed RAID0 array?
IAteYourMother
Lifer
- Nov 3, 2004
- 10,491
- 22
- 81
Data or useable data? You can recover RANDOM data, but nothing of use. Even if you had a file small enough to be contained in one stripe, you would have no way to know where it was, or even if it was on the disk for that matter. Your MAT went down with the array, so you are literally looking for a needle in a field of haystacks.
yes and no, only RAID1(mirroring) makes a complete copy of data on different disks. all other RAIDs above that use parity bits of the data on other disks. That way if one disk fails, the missing data is rebuilt from the parity bits on the working disks.
LOL you are the one picking at straws dude. Seriously, just give up and admit that you are wrong.
Oh, that's rich - the $40K sysadmin who makes up his own definition of redundancy is saying I'm grasping at straws.
For all intents and purposes, the data is lost. Any data you manage to recover, if any, is likely to be of very little use. Are you actually suggesting that that's a viable recovery strategy you implement in your networks?
Please answer the previous question posed by Spidey: 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've lost drives in RAID arrays, but I've never lost drives in a RAID 0 array because only a complete moron would use them in a production environment.
Picking a needle out of a field of haystacks... is that what this is? Damn, and I thought I was going to be a rich, rich man!
Originally posted by: TreyRandom
Oh, that's rich - the $40K sysadmin who makes up his own definition of redundancy is saying I'm grasping at straws.
Are you actually suggesting that that's a viable recovery strategy you implement in your networks? For all intents and purposes, the data is lost. Any data you recover is likely to be of very little use.
Answer the previous question posed by Spidey: 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've lost drives in RAID arrays, but I've never lost drives in a RAID 0 array because only a complete moron would use them in a production environmenet.
Wow you come back for like 2 posts and you wanna go down that road now? Fine I'll oblige.
nah, forget it. I wont stoop to your levels. This thread has degenerated and the quality of your logic has also. There is no more point in trying to fend off the endless trolls and flames. Goodbye.
Originally posted by: randay
Originally posted by: TreyRandom
Oh, that's rich - the $40K sysadmin who makes up his own definition of redundancy is saying I'm grasping at straws.
Are you actually suggesting that that's a viable recovery strategy you implement in your networks? For all intents and purposes, the data is lost. Any data you recover is likely to be of very little use.
Answer the previous question posed by Spidey: 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've lost drives in RAID arrays, but I've never lost drives in a RAID 0 array because only a complete moron would use them in a production environmenet.
Wow you come back for like 2 posts and you wanna go down that road now? Fine I'll oblige.
nah, forget it. I wont stoop to your levels. This thread has degenerated and the quality of your logic has also. There is no more point in trying to fend off the endless trolls and flames. Goodbye.
Yes, yes, WE are the ones who are trolling YOU. All of us, in a concerted trolling effort, though we bring useless links and meaningless proof and worthless years of experience to the table. All of us are wrong, and we are simply trolling you.
...all this to say, you obviously have your own definition of trolling too. :roll:
I wish you luck in your career. You'll need all you can get, considering your disdain for those who hold degrees, certifications, and higher-level IT positions.
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.
Um... the surviving disk only has 50% of recoverable data IF and only IF your RAID0 is set up as a concatenation (i.e., data is written sequentially to one disk until it fills, then sequentially to the next). However, the vast, vast, vast majority of out-of-the-box RAID0 configs uses round-robin striping to store data--most don't even give you concatenation as an option. Thus all you have on a surviving RAID0 member is shreds of unusable, unrecoverable data.
Clearly you don't work in a production environment...
Originally posted by: AStar617
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.
Um... the surviving disk only has 50% of recoverable data IF and only IF your RAID0 is set up as a concatenation (i.e., data is written sequentially to one disk until it fills, then sequentially to the next). However, the vast, vast, vast majority of out-of-the-box RAID0 configs uses round-robin striping to store data--most don't even give you concatenation as an option. Thus all you have on a surviving RAID0 member is shreds of unusable, unrecoverable data.
Clearly you don't work in a production environment...
But but, if you put your paper files in a shredder and remove half the contents of the basket, you still have half of your data left. All you need is a lilttle tape and you'll have half you data back in no time.
Originally posted by: Thorny
Originally posted by: AStar617
Um... the surviving disk only has 50% of recoverable data IF and only IF your RAID0 is set up as a concatenation (i.e., data is written sequentially to one disk until it fills, then sequentially to the next). However, the vast, vast, vast majority of out-of-the-box RAID0 configs uses round-robin striping to store data--most don't even give you concatenation as an option. Thus all you have on a surviving RAID0 member is shreds of unusable, unrecoverable data.
Clearly you don't work in a production environment...
But but, if you put your paper files in a shredder and remove half the contents of the basket, you still have half of your data left. All you need is a lilttle tape and you'll have half you data back in no time.
But but, you have to use two baskets so you have redundant baskets...
...and use a large shred size.
Yeah, sorry for my part in that.
Uh, to the OP. You will deal with many ignorant professors in your college years. My advice = Ignore it and keep your mouth shut when they're wrong (learned that the hard way)
I had a telecom prof that had never been in the industry and said some of the dumbest, most inaccurate things I'd ever heard. I, being all knowing and in the employ of a local telecom, felt it necessary to correct him frequently. He tired of it after one semester and the next 3 semester with him royally sucked ass. Of course I was right and he was wrong, but for some reason that didn't keep things in my favor. One class he failed me on my final exam when I was the one that programmed the DMS 10 that the test was taken on. He didn't know how to program the switch so I did it for him and showed him what to do, then he failed me for not taking the test. (He had told me my appearance was not required beforehand)
I apologize to you as well for derailing your thread.
Back on topic, you will likely have more knowledge than many of your professors, bosses, etc. Problem is, they're in the position of power. As long as you know the correct information, but answer things the way they want things answered (or do things the way you want them done), then you'll be good to go.
Perhaps he'll have some nuggets of old-school info that will come in handy to you.
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