My itec professor is a genius

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: TreyRandom
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

heh, speaking of semantics guys in the know and that specialize in storage religiously correct anybody that says "RAID 0". It's Just a bunch of discs.

 

[MrPickins]

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.

You need to get off the name thing...

RAID0 is not a true RAID. Nothing is redundant. If you think so, you may need to read the definition of redundant again.

I suppose you could technically call it "AID."

OP: Get off the prof's back. "New" is a subjective term, and not everyone has time to keep up with the bleeding edge.

 

[TreyRandom]

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.

You're confusing "redundant disk" with "redundant array". It's not RDIA (redundant disks in an array), it's RAID (redundant array of disks). You have no redundant array with RAID 0.

In RAID 1, you lose a disk, the array is still operational. In RAID 5, you lose a disk, the array is still operational. In RAID 1+0/0+1, you lose a disk, the array is still operational. In RAID 0, you lose a disk, you lose the array.

 

[randay]

Sorry, I follow standards, I don't make up my own definitions and standards just because I don't think they make sense.

 

[TreyRandom]

Originally posted by: randay
Sorry, I follow standards, I don't make up my own definitions and standards just because I don't think they make sense.

How are you not, when none of the industry-standard definitions agree with your definition?

How about Microsoft?

RAID 0 includes a disk array that implements striping without any drive redundancy. It offers no fault tolerance and is less reliable than a single-drive implementation; its only advantage is speed. RAID 0 is suitable for certain special applications, as in scientific analysis or imaging, where compromised system reliability can be tolerated.

EDIT: How about Anandtech, itself?

What RAID 0 boils down to is speed and little more. The fact of the matter is that RAID 0 is not redundant at all, just fast. But for many users, this is all that is important.

Whose definition do you need before you admit that your definition is incorrect?

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

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.

You're confusing "redundant disk" with "redundant array". It's not RDIA (redundant disks in an array), it's RAID (redundant array of disks). You have no redundant array with RAID 0.

In RAID 1, you lose a disk, the array is still operational. In RAID 5, you lose a disk, the array is still operational. In RAID 1+0/0+1, you lose a disk, the array is still operational. In RAID 0, you lose a disk, you lose the array.

Thats conditional, all arrays can become non funcitonal depending on x amount of drive failures. In fact RAID 2-6 don't repeat data across all disks, they use parity. The data must be rebuilt off the parity bits, so I guess they arent redundant either. You all seem to think that redundant means fault tolerant, there are varying degrees of fault tolerance. however there is only not redundant or redundant. Forget it, like i said before, theres no point in arguing it any further.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: randay
Sorry, I follow standards, I don't make up my own definitions and standards just because I don't think they make sense.

How are you not, when none of the industry-standard definitions agree with your definition?

How about Microsoft?

RAID 0 includes a disk array that implements striping without any drive redundancy. It offers no fault tolerance and is less reliable than a single-drive implementation; its only advantage is speed. RAID 0 is suitable for certain special applications, as in scientific analysis or imaging, where compromised system reliability can be tolerated.

EDIT: How about Anandtech, itself?

What RAID 0 boils down to is speed and little more. The fact of the matter is that RAID 0 is not redundant at all, just fast. But for many users, this is all that is important.

Whose definition do you need before you admit that your definition is incorrect?

They call it "RAID 0", not "AID 0". Are you conceding the fact that RAID 0 is a valid RAID? I am not disputing the fault tolerance of a level 0 array.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: MrPickins
You need to get off the name thing...

RAID0 is not a true RAID. Nothing is redundant. If you think so, you may need to read the definition of redundant again.

I suppose you could technically call it "AID."

The physical disk drives are redundant. Thats why its called RAID!

 

[TreyRandom]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: TreyRandom
You're confusing "redundant disk" with "redundant array". It's not RDIA (redundant disks in an array), it's RAID (redundant array of disks). You have no redundant array with RAID 0.

In RAID 1, you lose a disk, the array is still operational. In RAID 5, you lose a disk, the array is still operational. In RAID 1+0/0+1, you lose a disk, the array is still operational. In RAID 0, you lose a disk, you lose the array.

Thats conditional, all arrays can become non funcitonal depending on x amount of drive failures. In fact RAID 2-6 don't repeat data across all disks, they use parity. The data must be rebuilt off the parity bits, so I guess they arent redundant either. You all seem to think that redundant means fault tolerant, there are varying degrees of fault tolerance. however there is only not redundant or redundant. Forget it, like i said before, theres no point in arguing it any further.

The parity provides the redundancy of data, and thus, the integrity of the array is maintained. It is "extra" information, over and above the normal data. Is that not part of your Dictionary.com definition, way above?

Again, your definition of redundant doesn't agree with the industry standard definition. Is that our fault?

 

[TreyRandom]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: randay
Sorry, I follow standards, I don't make up my own definitions and standards just because I don't think they make sense.

How are you not, when none of the industry-standard definitions agree with your definition?

How about Microsoft?

RAID 0 includes a disk array that implements striping without any drive redundancy. It offers no fault tolerance and is less reliable than a single-drive implementation; its only advantage is speed. RAID 0 is suitable for certain special applications, as in scientific analysis or imaging, where compromised system reliability can be tolerated.

EDIT: How about Anandtech, itself?

What RAID 0 boils down to is speed and little more. The fact of the matter is that RAID 0 is not redundant at all, just fast. But for many users, this is all that is important.

Whose definition do you need before you admit that your definition is incorrect?

They call it "RAID 0", not "AID 0". Are you conceding the fact that RAID 0 is a valid RAID? I am not disputing the fault tolerance of a level 0 array.

Most of the links I provided state that RAID 0 isn't really RAID at all, nor was RAID 0 included in the original definition.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: TreyRandom
The parity provides the redundancy of data, and thus, the integrity of the array is maintained. It is "extra" information, over and above the normal data. Is that not part of your Dictionary.com definition, way above?

Again, your definition of redundant doesn't agree with the industry standard definition. Is that our fault?

contradict much? which definition do you believe is correct here? the dictionaries definition, or your "industry standard definition" ???? please to define that definition for us also, since I dont have my "industry standard definitions handbook" at the moment.

 

[TreyRandom]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: MrPickins
You need to get off the name thing...

RAID0 is not a true RAID. Nothing is redundant. If you think so, you may need to read the definition of redundant again.

I suppose you could technically call it "AID."

The physical disk drives are redundant. Thats why its called RAID!

Again, the array is what is redundant, not the disks: Redundant Array of Independent/Inexpensive Disks.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Originally posted by: spidey07
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.

Was referring to the case of two separate drives

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: randay
Sorry, I follow standards, I don't make up my own definitions and standards just because I don't think they make sense.

How are you not, when none of the industry-standard definitions agree with your definition?

How about Microsoft?

RAID 0 includes a disk array that implements striping without any drive redundancy. It offers no fault tolerance and is less reliable than a single-drive implementation; its only advantage is speed. RAID 0 is suitable for certain special applications, as in scientific analysis or imaging, where compromised system reliability can be tolerated.

EDIT: How about Anandtech, itself?

What RAID 0 boils down to is speed and little more. The fact of the matter is that RAID 0 is not redundant at all, just fast. But for many users, this is all that is important.

Whose definition do you need before you admit that your definition is incorrect?

They call it "RAID 0", not "AID 0". Are you conceding the fact that RAID 0 is a valid RAID? I am not disputing the fault tolerance of a level 0 array.

Most of the links I provided state that RAID 0 isn't really RAID at all, nor was RAID 0 included in the original definition.

Listen, I'll say this one last time and that'll be it. You are confused.

RAID 0 is not redundant.
RAID 0 is a RAID.

Both of these statements are true. How? Well you can't seem to wrap your head around it for some reason...

 

[TreyRandom]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: TreyRandom
The parity provides the redundancy of data, and thus, the integrity of the array is maintained. It is "extra" information, over and above the normal data. Is that not part of your Dictionary.com definition, way above?

Again, your definition of redundant doesn't agree with the industry standard definition. Is that our fault?

contradict much? which definition do you believe is correct here? the dictionaries definition, or your "industry standard definition" ???? please to define that definition for us also, since I dont have my "industry standard definitions handbook" at the moment.

I didn't contradict myself at all. The parity information provides redundancy.

The industry standard definition can be seen by searching ANY technical web site for ""RAID 0" redundant". Microsoft, Apple, HP, Dell, and every other site indicate that RAID 0 is not redundant, no matter what definition you place on it.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Originally posted by: TreyRandom
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

Bwahahaha.... quit fscking around TR

 

[TreyRandom]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: randay
Sorry, I follow standards, I don't make up my own definitions and standards just because I don't think they make sense.

How are you not, when none of the industry-standard definitions agree with your definition?

How about Microsoft?

RAID 0 includes a disk array that implements striping without any drive redundancy. It offers no fault tolerance and is less reliable than a single-drive implementation; its only advantage is speed. RAID 0 is suitable for certain special applications, as in scientific analysis or imaging, where compromised system reliability can be tolerated.

EDIT: How about Anandtech, itself?

What RAID 0 boils down to is speed and little more. The fact of the matter is that RAID 0 is not redundant at all, just fast. But for many users, this is all that is important.

Whose definition do you need before you admit that your definition is incorrect?

They call it "RAID 0", not "AID 0". Are you conceding the fact that RAID 0 is a valid RAID? I am not disputing the fault tolerance of a level 0 array.

Most of the links I provided state that RAID 0 isn't really RAID at all, nor was RAID 0 included in the original definition.

Listen, I'll say this one last time and that'll be it. You are confused.

RAID 0 is not redundant.
RAID 0 is a RAID.

Both of these statements are true. How? Well you can't seem to wrap your head around it for some reason...

I never said RAID 0 is a true RAID level. So both those statements aren't true.

 

[Al Neri]

Originally posted by: supafly
This guy is such a geek but he's clueless about new technology.

He loves to brag about great his latest and greatest fast computer with a "dual core pentium running at 3 gigger-hurtz" with an entire one gigger-byte of RAM. And don't forget his awesomely huge 19" LCD.

We were going over some powerpoint slides about hardware. As we got to the part about disk drives, he mentioned that they are just starting to come out with 500GB drives and they're trying to make 1TB drives. Wow, thanks for keeping us current. I'll keep an eye out for those 500GB drives.
Also, all RAID setups have built in fault tolerance. Isn't that special?

Then on the subject of flash drives, he was talking about how he finally saw a 2GB flash drive for sale. Yippie. Then later, he was amazed at a 6GB micro drive. I guess he isn't aware of 4GB, 8GB, and 16GB flash drives currently for sale.


Hopefully after we move on from this introduction crap, this guy actually can teach us something.

You must be a hit with the ladies.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: MrPickins
You need to get off the name thing...

RAID0 is not a true RAID. Nothing is redundant. If you think so, you may need to read the definition of redundant again.

I suppose you could technically call it "AID."

The physical disk drives are redundant. Thats why its called RAID!

How are the drives redundant? Because there are two?
If they are each being filled with different data, and thus are both being utilized fully, how can one or the other be considered "extra"?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redundant

2. being in excess; exceeding what is usual or natural: a redundant part.
3. having some unusual or extra part or feature.
7. Computers. containing more bits or characters than are required, as a parity bit inserted for checking purposes.

Where are the extra characters or parity bits, for that matter?

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: MrPickins
You need to get off the name thing...

RAID0 is not a true RAID. Nothing is redundant. If you think so, you may need to read the definition of redundant again.

I suppose you could technically call it "AID."

The physical disk drives are redundant. Thats why its called RAID!

Again, the array is what is redundant, not the disks: Redundant Array of Independent/Inexpensive Disks.

An Array of WHAT?

 

[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
Sorry, I follow standards, I don't make up my own definitions and standards just because I don't think they make sense.

How are you not, when none of the industry-standard definitions agree with your definition?

How about Microsoft?

RAID 0 includes a disk array that implements striping without any drive redundancy. It offers no fault tolerance and is less reliable than a single-drive implementation; its only advantage is speed. RAID 0 is suitable for certain special applications, as in scientific analysis or imaging, where compromised system reliability can be tolerated.

EDIT: How about Anandtech, itself?

What RAID 0 boils down to is speed and little more. The fact of the matter is that RAID 0 is not redundant at all, just fast. But for many users, this is all that is important.

Whose definition do you need before you admit that your definition is incorrect?

They call it "RAID 0", not "AID 0". Are you conceding the fact that RAID 0 is a valid RAID? I am not disputing the fault tolerance of a level 0 array.

Most of the links I provided state that RAID 0 isn't really RAID at all, nor was RAID 0 included in the original definition.

Listen, I'll say this one last time and that'll be it. You are confused.

RAID 0 is not redundant.
RAID 0 is a RAID.

Both of these statements are true. How? Well you can't seem to wrap your head around it for some reason...

I never said RAID 0 is a true RAID level. So both those statements aren't true.

Like I said, I follow standards. I don't make up my own.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
You must be a hit with the ladies.

How hard is your hard drive? Okay, I'll shut up now :laugh:

 

[TreyRandom]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: TreyRandom

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: MrPickins
You need to get off the name thing...

RAID0 is not a true RAID. Nothing is redundant. If you think so, you may need to read the definition of redundant again.

I suppose you could technically call it "AID."

The physical disk drives are redundant. Thats why its called RAID!

Again, the array is what is redundant, not the disks: Redundant Array of Independent/Inexpensive Disks.

An Array of WHAT?

If it were an array of dingleberries, it'd STILL be the array that is redundant.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: MrPickins
How are the drives redundant? Because there are two?
If they are each being filled with different data, and thus are both being utilized fully, how can one or the other be considered "extra"?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redundant

2. being in excess; exceeding what is usual or natural: a redundant part.
3. having some unusual or extra part or feature.
7. Computers. containing more bits or characters than are required, as a parity bit inserted for checking purposes.

Where are the extra characters or parity bits, for that matter?

5. Engineering. a. (of a structural member) not necessary for resisting statically determined stresses.
b. (of a structure) having members designed to resist other than statically determined stresses; hyperstatic.
c. noting a complete truss having additional members for resisting eccentric loads. Compare complete (def. 8), incomplete (def. 3).
d. (of a device, circuit, computer system, etc.) having excess or duplicate parts that can continue to perform in the event of malfunction of some of the parts.

 

[Gibson486]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: MrPickins
How are the drives redundant? Because there are two?
If they are each being filled with different data, and thus are both being utilized fully, how can one or the other be considered "extra"?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redundant

2. being in excess; exceeding what is usual or natural: a redundant part.
3. having some unusual or extra part or feature.
7. Computers. containing more bits or characters than are required, as a parity bit inserted for checking purposes.

Where are the extra characters or parity bits, for that matter?

5. Engineering. a. (of a structural member) not necessary for resisting statically determined stresses.
b. (of a structure) having members designed to resist other than statically determined stresses; hyperstatic.
c. noting a complete truss having additional members for resisting eccentric loads. Compare complete (def. 8), incomplete (def. 3).
d. (of a device, circuit, computer system, etc.) having excess or duplicate parts that can continue to perform in the event of malfunction of some of the parts.

you did not even answer his question.....