My itec professor is a genius

[toolboxolio]

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.

Good for you if you are happy. Hopefully you will be able to finish up those last credits and get the paper for the sake of better opportunities down the road. HR seems to love paper over personality.

 

[alocurto]

Don't expect too much from teachers and you won't be let down. Whatever you do, get a teacher who was/is in the field and teachers at night or is retired. I had some retired IBMers and they were outstanding!

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.

 

[Goosemaster]

[edit] RAID 0 failure rate

Randay...

You made me laugh so I'll try to be nice.
Even a quick search of wikipedia will give your answer

@wiki

"In computing, the acronym RAID (originally redundant array of inexpensive disks, also known as redundant array of independent disks) refers to a data storage scheme using multiple hard drives to share or replicate data among the drives. Depending on the configuration of the RAID (typically referred to as the RAID level), the benefit of RAID is to increase data integrity, fault-tolerance, throughput or capacity, compared with single drives. In its original implementations, its key advantage was the ability to combine multiple low-cost devices using older technology into an array that offered greater capacity, reliability, speed, or a combination of these things, than was affordably available in a single device using the newest technology."

Key word is OR. The technology known as RAID allowed for certain increases in functionality. It is an acronym and used to describe the technology, AND the CONTROLLER that makes all this happen. Acronyms get thrown around. Stop acting all high and mighty.



from another page on wiki:

@wiki

[edit] RAID 0 failure rate
Although RAID 0 was not specified in the original RAID paper, an idealized implementation of RAID 0 would split I/O operations into equal-sized blocks and spread them evenly across two disks. RAID 0 implementations with more than two disks are also possible, though the group reliability decreases with member size.

Reliability of a given RAID 0 set is equal to the average reliability of each disk divided by the number of disks in the set:

I wouldn't even THINK about using RAID 0 and the word REDUNDANT in the same sentence except to say that RAID 0 is easy to remember.

Company that provides RAID controllers. They say it's not a "true" "RAID" product


adaptec's opinion:

@adaptec

A Raid 0 (zero) Array, is the striping of data across multiple drives without generating parity information. Since no parity information is generated, RAID 0 (zero) is not fault tolerant.

When a drive fails in a RAID 0 there is no protection even with a hot spare assigned.

A "Hot Spare" will protect fault tolerant RAID Arrays (i.e. RAID 1, 10, 5, 50, etc.) only.

What's my point?

No one in their right mind except a troll, a fool, or a liar would ever spend so much time on semantics when anyone who knew their stuff would know that A RAID ARRAY IS CALLED AS SUCH BECAUSE ON THE CONTROLLER THAT MANAGES THE DISKS IN AN ARRAY.

Hopefully you area nice guy who got ahead of himself, learned his lesson, and won't do something like this again.

No one in their right mind except a troll, a fool, or a liar would diss an IT degree so close to achieving it. I used to do it. I learned. I no longer do it. They might be worthless or they might not, but who in their right mind would spend 120credits worth of $$ and then say no to another 4 credits for the degree?! One thing is arguing against it, but what you described is idiocy if you still work in IT. This isn't IT related; It's logic we're talkign about here.


I try not to be so childish but you are badmouthing a lot of people who CLEARLY show that they know what they are talking about and I'm one of the people that hate seeing that.


To quote what's her name on Chappelle's show:

I don't like people playing on ma phone:|

edit: dammnit..I got dragged into one of "these" again :|

 

[eits]

haha what a gigger-idiot

 

[Gautama2]

Why does this thread have a 7 page arguement in it, which was pretty much resolved in page 3?

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Randay...

You made me laugh so I'll try to be nice.
Even a quick search of wikipedia will give your answer

@wiki

"In computing, the acronym RAID (originally redundant array of inexpensive disks, also known as redundant array of independent disks) refers to a data storage scheme using multiple hard drives to share or replicate data among the drives. Depending on the configuration of the RAID (typically referred to as the RAID level), the benefit of RAID is to increase data integrity, fault-tolerance, throughput or capacity, compared with single drives. In its original implementations, its key advantage was the ability to combine multiple low-cost devices using older technology into an array that offered greater capacity, reliability, speed, or a combination of these things, than was affordably available in a single device using the newest technology."

Key word is OR. The technology known as RAID allowed for certain increases in functionality. It is an acronym and used to describe the technology, AND the CONTROLLER that makes all this happen. Acronyms get thrown around. Stop acting all high and mighty.

ive read that already. how does this exclude RAID0 from being a valid RAID level? In fact the key word 'or' would seem to validate it as a valid RAID.

I wouldn't even THINK about using RAID 0 and the word REDUNDANT in the same sentence except to say that RAID 0 is easy to remember.

I've never said that RAID0 is redundant.

Company that provides RAID controllers. They say it's not a "true" "RAID" product


adaptec's opinion:

@adaptec

A Raid 0 (zero) Array, is the striping of data across multiple drives without generating parity information. Since no parity information is generated, RAID 0 (zero) is not fault tolerant.

When a drive fails in a RAID 0 there is no protection even with a hot spare assigned.

A "Hot Spare" will protect fault tolerant RAID Arrays (i.e. RAID 1, 10, 5, 50, etc.) only.

They make no mention of RAID0 not being a valid RAID. in fact the mere fact that they use the term RAID0 would seem to validate it as a RAID level. if not, wouldnt they call id "data striping" or some such?

What's my point?

No one in their right mind except a troll, a fool, or a liar would ever spend so much time on semantics when anyone who knew their stuff would know that A RAID ARRAY IS CALLED AS SUCH BECAUSE ON THE CONTROLLER THAT MANAGES THE DISKS IN AN ARRAY.

raid controller

Hopefully you area nice guy who got ahead of himself, learned his lesson, and won't do something like this again.

i havent learned anything except that people like to oversimplify things and make up incorrect assumptions about RAID0.

edit: dammnit..I got dragged into one of "these" again :|

dont worry, ill just ignore that other stuff.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: randay

so you agree that this a pointless discussion that serves no real purpose except to vindicate you on what was orginally a stupid thing to spend so much time on anyway?

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: randay

so you agree that this a pointless discussion that serves no real purpose except to vindicate you on what was orginally a stupid thing to spend so much time on anyway?

yes, i said that to trey on like page 4 or 5 or something, but i was bored and he didnt acknowlege id so what the hey?!

 

[randay]

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.

page 4

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: randay

so you agree that this a pointless discussion that serves no real purpose except to vindicate you on what was orginally a stupid thing to spend so much time on anyway?

yes, i said that to trey on like page 4 or 5 or something, but i was bored and he didnt acknowlege id so what the hey?!

The thing that irks me is that he was tryign to give you right information and in the midst of actign all high and mighty you prolonged what coudl ahve been a very short disscussion on the usage of the term RAID in the IT Industry.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: randay

so you agree that this a pointless discussion that serves no real purpose except to vindicate you on what was orginally a stupid thing to spend so much time on anyway?

yes, i said that to trey on like page 4 or 5 or something, but i was bored and he didnt acknowlege id so what the hey?!

The thing that irks me is that he was tryign to give you right information and in the midst of actign all high and mighty you prolonged what coudl ahve been a very short disscussion on the usage of the term RAID in the IT Industry.

ive never head anyone call it anything other then "raidzero"

 

[Jawo]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
At least he didn't call it a "jiggabyte" ...

"1.21 jiggawatts!"
"What the hell is a jiggawatt?"

*EDIT* As far as education goes, I'm learning that it's who you know, not what you know that gets you a job. Then it's those pieces of paper that get you good paying jobs. What you actually know comes in a distant 3rd as far as importance it seems.

Well thats the facts of life. I would add a #4 as Boss can make a job enjoyable or painful (I have experience that all about are true!)

 

[Howard]

way too late

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: randay

so you agree that this a pointless discussion that serves no real purpose except to vindicate you on what was orginally a stupid thing to spend so much time on anyway?

yes, i said that to trey on like page 4 or 5 or something, but i was bored and he didnt acknowlege id so what the hey?!

The thing that irks me is that he was tryign to give you right information and in the midst of actign all high and mighty you prolonged what coudl ahve been a very short disscussion on the usage of the term RAID in the IT Industry.

ive never head anyone call it anything other then "raidzero"

Wait, I though your deal was to follow "standards" and not what's going on in the industry?

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: randay

so you agree that this a pointless discussion that serves no real purpose except to vindicate you on what was orginally a stupid thing to spend so much time on anyway?

yes, i said that to trey on like page 4 or 5 or something, but i was bored and he didnt acknowlege id so what the hey?!

The thing that irks me is that he was tryign to give you right information and in the midst of actign all high and mighty you prolonged what coudl ahve been a very short disscussion on the usage of the term RAID in the IT Industry.

ive never head anyone call it anything other then "raidzero"

Wait, I though your deal was to follow "standards" and not what's going on in the industry?

RAID zero is the industry standard term of describing a striping array.

Listen, some of you cannot grasp the fact that redundant != fault tolerant. redundant can mean many things. redundancy is a bad way to describe the fault tolerancy of data in the different RAID levels.

Take a redundant power supply for example. it has nothing to do with data or parity bits or anything. But it is still redundant, when one part fails, the other one(or more) can still supply power.

Redundant internet connections, when one connection goes down, the other can continue to transmit and recieve, the data being tx/rx is not duplicated.

The easiest way to explain things, without any confusion, is to say that a RAID array is an array of two or more(redundant as in multiple/or identical) disks. and that RAID0 is not fault tolerant.

If you were(and you are currently) say that RAID is redundant and RAID0 is not redundant and so RAID0 is not a RAID. All you end up doing is saying something that makes no sense to me and makes me want to clarify exactly what you are trying to say.

 

[spidey07]

Randy, I think you need to understand what redundant is.

You are very wrong on your understanding. It's been explained to you over and over and over again.

 

[JS80]

The idiots in our IT department still purchase HP P4's at full retail...

 

[Kirby]

meh, still on IDE here

 

[Imdmn04]

What kinda noob class was this? Intro to computers 101?

 

[JDMnAR1]

Heh - gotta love the RAID holy war that got started over an off the cuff remark I made.

Allow me to illustrate my statement that redundancy <> fault-tolerance in terms other than physical disks and logical containers and all of that jazz. I am the primary admin responsible for several systems at work. However, I do have another admin who is designated as my backup when I am out of the office. Therefore, I feel safe in saying that we have redundancy. Nevertheless, I can count on one hand the number of times I have been out of the office (sick, vacation, conference, etc) and have not recieved an email, page or call on something requiring my attention. With that said, I feel equally comfortable saying that we do not have fault-tolerance.

Now back on the RAID deal - one can certainly argue that from a hardware perspective you do in fact have redundancy with RAID 0 since you have used multiple smaller drives when one larger drive would suffice, and if one of those drives fails, the other(s) would still be useable in creating another array. Of course from a data perspective, you have no redundancy whatsoever with RAID 0.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: JS80
The idiots in our IT department still purchase HP P4's at full retail...

We get gateways

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
I've noticed that most non-gamers don't bother keeping up with what's new in the tech industry.
Gamers are always on the lookout for new GPU/CPUs, drivers, hacks, patches, tweaks etc.

Those working in IT obviously know what's new in computing (but not necessarily in audio/video)
Other people just...don't care much, I think.

i (mostly) stopped paying attention to hardware when i stopped gaming

it became rather unimportant. that, and im using a laptop,and dont *want* to know what else is out there

 

[Fritzo]

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.

Don't tell him I got a 750GB drive at work :shocked:

 

[Thorny]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: randay

so you agree that this a pointless discussion that serves no real purpose except to vindicate you on what was orginally a stupid thing to spend so much time on anyway?

yes, i said that to trey on like page 4 or 5 or something, but i was bored and he didnt acknowlege id so what the hey?!

The thing that irks me is that he was tryign to give you right information and in the midst of actign all high and mighty you prolonged what coudl ahve been a very short disscussion on the usage of the term RAID in the IT Industry.

ive never head anyone call it anything other then "raidzero"

Wait, I though your deal was to follow "standards" and not what's going on in the industry?

RAID zero is the industry standard term of describing a striping array.

Listen, some of you cannot grasp the fact that redundant != fault tolerant. redundant can mean many things. redundancy is a bad way to describe the fault tolerancy of data in the different RAID levels.

Take a redundant power supply for example. it has nothing to do with data or parity bits or anything. But it is still redundant, when one part fails, the other one(or more) can still supply power.

Redundant internet connections, when one connection goes down, the other can continue to transmit and recieve, the data being tx/rx is not duplicated.

The easiest way to explain things, without any confusion, is to say that a RAID array is an array of two or more(redundant as in multiple/or identical) disks. and that RAID0 is not fault tolerant.

If you were(and you are currently) say that RAID is redundant and RAID0 is not redundant and so RAID0 is not a RAID. All you end up doing is saying something that makes no sense to me and makes me want to clarify exactly what you are trying to say.

What makes those things redundant is that they perform the EXACT same task. The disk in Raid 0 do not perform the same task, therefor are not redundant. The reason for redundancy is so that if one device fails the other can take its place with no down time. The things you mentioned would not be redundant if they did provide fail protection for the other.

You saying that the disk in a Raid 0 are redundant is like me saying the tires on my car are redundant, which of course they are not. Each tire is has it's own task and cannot be eliminated, except for the spare, which IS redundant.

The only way two disk can be redundant without being in a Raid 1 or higher is if they were both being used as a paperweight on the same piece of paper. Just because there are two physical disk in a computer does not make them redundant.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: Thorny

What makes those things redundant is that they perform the EXACT same task. The disk in Raid 0 do not perform the same task, therefor are not redundant. The reason for redundancy is so that if one device fails the other can take its place with no down time. The things you mentioned would not be redundant if they did provide fail protection for the other.

You saying that the disk in a Raid 0 are redundant is like me saying the tires on my car are redundant, which of course they are not. Each tire is has it's own task and cannot be eliminated, except for the spare, which IS redundant.

The only way two disk can be redundant without being in a Raid 1 or higher is if they were both being used as a paperweight on the same piece of paper. Just because there are two physical disk in a computer does not make them redundant.

And we have a winnar!