My itec professor is a genius

[TreyRandom]

Originally posted by: 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".

In what way is the disk array redundant? Having multiple disks doesn't make anything redundant. How would a disk containing file A and a disk containing file B be redundant in any way? See the links I posted above.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Originally posted by: TreyRandom
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.

Technically, this offers more "redundancy" that RAID 0. At least not all your data goes to that big bit bin in heaven when a drive in the array tanks.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: Leros
The professor in my computing class who actually does processor design for major companies (intel, etc) is pretty clueless about modern computers. He was telling us about how there is a card in our computers that holds the keyboard registries. I'm pretty sure they keyboard registry has been on the motherboard for a long time. He talked about all sorts of archaic stuff like it was still standard.

That's hilarious! That guy is 30 years behind the curve! Keyboard controllers have been built in since before I was born.

 

[Rock Hydra]

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: 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".

In what way is the disk array redundant? Having multiple disks doesn't make anything redundant. See the links I posted above.

I'm not referring to data...I'm referring to the redundancy of using physical disks.

 

[TreyRandom]

Originally posted by: WhoBeDaPlaya

Originally posted by: TreyRandom
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.

Technically, this offers more "redundancy" that RAID 0. At least not all your data goes to that big bit bin in heaven when a drive in the array tanks.

Though it's not redundant to have two separate, non-arrayed disks, it's certainly safer, isn't it? One disk dies in a RAID 0 array, and ALL your data's gone, as you stated.

 

[TreyRandom]

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: 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".

In what way is the disk array redundant? Having multiple disks doesn't make anything redundant. See the links I posted above.

I'm not referring to data...I'm referring to the redundancy of using physical disks.

In what way are the disks redundant? Just because the physical disk is the same doesn't make it redundant.

I've got two 300 GB disks. How do I have redundancy? I don't. If one fails, my other disk is... just a disk. If they're mirrored, however, I have redundancy. If one fails, the other disk is exactly the same as the one I lost.

In a RAID 0 array, it's even worse... you lose one disk, and ALL your data is gone.

EDIT: Go ahead, continue to be stubborn, and apply your own definitions to things, even after the links I posted above. Doesn't matter to me. Wallow in your stubbornness.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: 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".

In what way is the disk array redundant? Having multiple disks doesn't make anything redundant. How would a disk containing file A and a disk containing file B be redundant in any way? See the links I posted above.

You are confusing physical and logical still.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: WhoBeDaPlaya

Originally posted by: TreyRandom
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.

Technically, this offers more "redundancy" that RAID 0. At least not all your data goes to that big bit bin in heaven when a drive in the array tanks.

in raid 0 ALL of your data is lost when a drive fails. That's why it isn't consider RAID, it offers no redundancy at all whatsoever and actually is more harmfull than good.

For high performance applications you can setup a raid 0 mirror - it's two arrays of raid 0 (striping) that mirror each other.

 

[TreyRandom]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: 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".

In what way is the disk array redundant? Having multiple disks doesn't make anything redundant. How would a disk containing file A and a disk containing file B be redundant in any way? See the links I posted above.

You are confusing physical and logical still.

I'm not confusing anything. Two physical disks that are the same that don't have the same data on them are no more redundant than saying that all the 300 GB drives at CompUSA are redundant.

 

[Rock Hydra]

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: 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".

In what way is the disk array redundant? Having multiple disks doesn't make anything redundant. See the links I posted above.

I'm not referring to data...I'm referring to the redundancy of using physical disks.

In what way are the disks redundant? Just because the physical disk is the same doesn't make it redundant.

I've got two 300 GB disks. How do I have redundancy? I don't. If one fails, my other disk is... just a disk. If they're mirrored, however, I have redundancy. If one fails, the other disk is exactly the same as the one I lost.

In a RAID 0 array, it's even worse... you lose one disk, and ALL your data is gone.

EDIT: Go ahead, continue to be stubborn, and apply your own definitions to things, even after the links I posted above. Doesn't matter to me. Wallow in your stubbornness.

Text

 

[bleeb]

Quit being an arse.... some people might need to know that information.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: 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".

In what way is the disk array redundant? Having multiple disks doesn't make anything redundant. See the links I posted above.

I'm not referring to data...I'm referring to the redundancy of using physical disks.

In what way are the disks redundant? Just because the physical disk is the same doesn't make it redundant.

I've got two 300 GB disks. How do I have redundancy? I don't. If one fails, my other disk is... just a disk. If they're mirrored, however, I have redundancy. If one fails, the other disk is exactly the same as the one I lost.

In a RAID 0 array, it's even worse... you lose one disk, and ALL your data is gone.

EDIT: Go ahead, continue to be stubborn, and apply your own definitions to things, even after the links I posted above. Doesn't matter to me. Wallow in your stubbornness.

If one disk fails, the other disk still works.
If you have only one disk, if one disk fails, there are no other disks that still work.

from wikipedia

The term RAID was first defined by David A. Patterson, Garth A. Gibson and Randy Katz at the University of California, Berkeley in 1987.[2] They studied the possibility of using two or more disks to appear as a single device to the host system and published a paper: "A case for Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)" in June 1988 at the SIGMOD conference.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: bleeb
Quit being an arse.... some people might need to know that information.

What's even funnier is the professor is correct about 500 gig drives being a new thing.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: 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".

In what way is the disk array redundant? Having multiple disks doesn't make anything redundant. How would a disk containing file A and a disk containing file B be redundant in any way? See the links I posted above.

You are confusing physical and logical still.

I'm not confusing anything. Two physical disks that are the same that don't have the same data on them are no more redundant than saying that all the 300 GB drives at CompUSA are redundant.

yes, you are.

 

[TreyRandom]

Originally posted by: randay
If one disk fails, the other disk still works.
If you have only one disk, if one disk fails, there are no other disks that still work.

from wikipedia

The term RAID was first defined by David A. Patterson, Garth A. Gibson and Randy Katz at the University of California, Berkeley in 1987.[2] They studied the possibility of using two or more disks to appear as a single device to the host system and published a paper: "A case for Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)" in June 1988 at the SIGMOD conference.

In RAID 0, if one disk fails, what good is it if you have one disk that works? The entire array is gone if one disk fails.

 

[mb]

Can I go back in time and not mention the RAID part?

 

[tfinch2]

RAID 0 is not redundant. If a disk fails you're fvcked. You have logically contiguous data that is not physically contiguous.

Redundant means repeated unnecessarily. If you have two disks that are 250 GB each in RAID 0, no data is repeated, and neither of the disk is unneccessary to have 500 GB, therefore not redundant.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: randay
If one disk fails, the other disk still works.
If you have only one disk, if one disk fails, there are no other disks that still work.

from wikipedia

The term RAID was first defined by David A. Patterson, Garth A. Gibson and Randy Katz at the University of California, Berkeley in 1987.[2] They studied the possibility of using two or more disks to appear as a single device to the host system and published a paper: "A case for Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)" in June 1988 at the SIGMOD conference.

Nope. The Entire volume worthless if you lose one disk.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: randay
If one disk fails, the other disk still works.
If you have only one disk, if one disk fails, there are no other disks that still work.

from wikipedia

The term RAID was first defined by David A. Patterson, Garth A. Gibson and Randy Katz at the University of California, Berkeley in 1987.[2] They studied the possibility of using two or more disks to appear as a single device to the host system and published a paper: "A case for Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)" in June 1988 at the SIGMOD conference.

In RAID 0, if one disk fails, what good is it if you have one disk that works? The entire array is gone if one disk fails.

You can use it and a new drive to build a new array.

Listen, the original name was "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks". Think about that for a bit, and if you still feel the way you do about it then forget I said anything. Theres no point in trying to argue it any further.

 

[TreyRandom]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: randay
If one disk fails, the other disk still works.
If you have only one disk, if one disk fails, there are no other disks that still work.

from wikipedia

The term RAID was first defined by David A. Patterson, Garth A. Gibson and Randy Katz at the University of California, Berkeley in 1987.[2] They studied the possibility of using two or more disks to appear as a single device to the host system and published a paper: "A case for Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)" in June 1988 at the SIGMOD conference.

Nope. The Entire volume worthless if you lose one disk.

But Spidey... you have one or more physical disks that haven't failed. Don't confuse physical with logical, man...

sorry, couldn't resist. heheheheh

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: randay
If one disk fails, the other disk still works.
If you have only one disk, if one disk fails, there are no other disks that still work.

from wikipedia

The term RAID was first defined by David A. Patterson, Garth A. Gibson and Randy Katz at the University of California, Berkeley in 1987.[2] They studied the possibility of using two or more disks to appear as a single device to the host system and published a paper: "A case for Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)" in June 1988 at the SIGMOD conference.

In RAID 0, if one disk fails, what good is it if you have one disk that works? The entire array is gone if one disk fails.

You can use it and a new drive to build a new array.

Listen, the original name was "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks". Think about that for a bit, and if you still feel the way you do about it then forget I said anything. Theres no point in trying to argue it any further.

Give it up. You're wrong. You lose. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

 

[TreyRandom]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: randay
If one disk fails, the other disk still works.
If you have only one disk, if one disk fails, there are no other disks that still work.

from wikipedia

The term RAID was first defined by David A. Patterson, Garth A. Gibson and Randy Katz at the University of California, Berkeley in 1987.[2] They studied the possibility of using two or more disks to appear as a single device to the host system and published a paper: "A case for Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)" in June 1988 at the SIGMOD conference.

In RAID 0, if one disk fails, what good is it if you have one disk that works? The entire array is gone if one disk fails.

You can use it and a new drive to build a new array.

Listen, the original name was "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks". Think about that for a bit, and if you still feel the way you do about it then forget I said anything. Theres no point in trying to argue it any further.

I've thought about it, and I've published plenty of study materials on it. Without redundant data, you don't have a redundant disk array.

 

[Gibson486]

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.

but it's 1 class.....

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: randay
If one disk fails, the other disk still works.
If you have only one disk, if one disk fails, there are no other disks that still work.

from wikipedia

The term RAID was first defined by David A. Patterson, Garth A. Gibson and Randy Katz at the University of California, Berkeley in 1987.[2] They studied the possibility of using two or more disks to appear as a single device to the host system and published a paper: "A case for Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)" in June 1988 at the SIGMOD conference.

Nope. The Entire volume worthless if you lose one disk.

Youre confusing the disks with the data. RAID 0 is RAID LEVEL 0, appropriately named 0 since there is no fault tolerance. But the RAID part of the whole thing refers to the array of disks, not the fault tolerance of the data. the LEVEL is what refers to the redundancy or fault tolerance of the data.

Take a real world example. You can buy one 750gb disk for 400 dollars, or you can buy 2 500 gig disks for 150. If you raid them you then can have an array that is as effective if not more effective then one single drive, for less money. If one drive fails, you replace it for 150 dollars. If you went with a single drive, you replace it for 400 dollars. This is where the "redundant" comes into play. The RAID LEVEL doesnt matter.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: randay
If one disk fails, the other disk still works.
If you have only one disk, if one disk fails, there are no other disks that still work.

from wikipedia

The term RAID was first defined by David A. Patterson, Garth A. Gibson and Randy Katz at the University of California, Berkeley in 1987.[2] They studied the possibility of using two or more disks to appear as a single device to the host system and published a paper: "A case for Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)" in June 1988 at the SIGMOD conference.

Nope. The Entire volume worthless if you lose one disk.

Youre confusing the disks with the data. RAID 0 is RAID LEVEL 0, appropriately named 0 since there is no fault tolerance. But the RAID part of the whole thing refers to the array of disks, not the fault tolerance of the data. the LEVEL is what refers to the redundancy or fault tolerance of the data.

Take a real world example. You can buy one 750gb disk for 400 dollars, or you can buy 2 500 gig disks for 150. If you raid them you then can have an array that is as effective if not more effective then one single drive, for less money. If one drive fails, you replace it for 150 dollars. If you went with a single drive, you replace it for 400 dollars. This is where the "redundant" comes into play. The RAID LEVEL doesnt matter.

Pick up and scholarly authoritative source on RAID (textbook), and it will say RAID 0 is not RAID. It is not redundant. Period.