I'd swear you were in class with me, my teacher is like this. He was talking about how 500GB HDD are on the way and some are already out but way expensive. I told him there's 750GB drives and he didn't believe me, he also doesn't understand that CPU clock speed isn't the necessary definitive standpoint for performance. He accepted "2 gigahertz" as a benchmark for average clockspeeds today.
I'd swear you were in class with me, my teacher is like this. He was talking about how 500GB HDD are on the way and some are already out but way expensive. I told him there's 750GB drives and he didn't believe me, he also doesn't understand that CPU clock speed isn't the necessary definitive standpoint for performance. He accepted "2 gigahertz" as a benchmark for average clockspeeds today.
- Jun 10, 2004
- 14,600
- 6,084
- 136
Originally posted by: randay
Originally posted by: Leros
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.
You may be surprised to know that in some IT jobs just having a degree will get you a higher base salary. If you're 4 credits short just do your damn time and finish. That "piece of paper" might come in handy later on in your career.
Originally posted by: randay
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Originally posted by: randay
Size and speed matters, or else everyone would use mirroring. Depending on your application, speed can be more important than fault tolerance. Processing large data sets for example, like images, video, audio, etc... Databases with huge amounts of transactions. Fault tolerance is probably the most common reason to use RAID though. RAID5 is probably the best RAID level even though it does not offer as high fault tolerance and availability as mirroring. Ive worked with more RAID3,5, and 0 arrays then RAID1s. Of course I always push for the RAID1 just to cover my ass.
Okay mr. bigshot.
Web transactions or database queries. Give me numbers. Everyone including myself has spouted their share of BS but you are going over the line. Who in their right mind talks about VIDEO AND AUDIO when it comes to an enterprise environment. We are talking hardcore database and web transactions here...you know, things that go on in an enterprise enviroment.
That said, I can only talk about it so much more, as we are sort of getting to the bounds of my knowledge. Anything more that I can say is just numbers that I pull out of eweek or networkworld or books. I really have no real-world experience with databases in raid.
See...now you can trash me on the higher-level stuff which hopefully you know....right after we get done talking semantics...
Uh, you really dont need first hand experience to understand why speed would be more important or important at all. It also does not have to be an enterprise environment. I havent worked with any large databases myself but I do know a game called EVE online which is basically limited by the speed of its database drives. They use RAMSAN solid state disks so its no joke. Its not hard to imagine a database application needing really low access and read times above all else.
In my own personal experience, the data processing guys prefer RAID0 over RAID1. They process images, and I dont mean nekkid pics or anything like that, I mean sonar images, google earth type stuff. large images stitched together to make even larger images and then they have to make it all pretty and what not.
Also for some reason the programmers prefer really fast disks as well. They use a third party program for source control so I guess thats why they are not very concerned over fault tolerance and availability. In fact they've already had some failures and downtime but they still insist on RAID0 and speed speed speed. Something about wanting to compile faster. Hell who am I to complain.
RAID5 would be ideal but its just too expensive, most mobos only support 0 and 1 and you need more then just 2 drives
It's not all about speed man. Hell, even I know that.
as for imagining and not needing the first-hand experience to pass judgment....
wow dude. Hell I know sh!t about the industry but even common logic makes sure don't say something so ignorant.
The fact is you surmise when, even for the sake of this discussion that is not a smart thing to do.
You might try dwelling in facts rather than comparing random scenarios like gaming networks and small-time experiences.
Sure valid comparisons can be made, but neither you or I, from what I have read, are fit to make such judgments...yet.
RelaxTheMind
Platinum Member
- Oct 15, 2002
- 2,245
- 0
- 76
RAID0 "refers" to striped drives. It is a name/label/pointer. In effect mainly because it has not been called anything else. Its people much like yourself that will call Maxtor and ask why you only have ~460gb when you bought a 500gb hard drive -or- the many people that refer to a computer case as the "CPU" we all know what it is but people somehow have that "label" stuck in their head.
Its a label, and unless your really that lame and stubborn or your just simply joking around.
So +1 for RAID0 not being a theoretical or logical Redundant Array of Independant Disks.
My entire Computer Networking class gets Vista for free (every student), and today in class some kids were shitting themselves over getting their PC's prepped to run Vista. After some looking through various computer websites, they had divided into two factions, one for upgrading to 2gb of ram and one for upgrading their video cards. The video card crowd decided thte 256mb X550 was obviously very powerful because its PCI Express and has a whopping 256mb of ram, while the 2gb of ram crew had better logic in that vista is going to take more system resources to do what they already do in XP.
I tried to chime in that they arent going to be doing any gaming beyond Counter Strike or World of Warcraft with a X550, but they ignored me.
I tried to chime in that they arent going to be doing any gaming beyond Counter Strike or World of Warcraft with a X550, but they ignored me.
Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Nope, no linux nerds
Small class.
must have been hilarious...
on a sader note, I went to pick up a thumb drive at a comp store and wanted to see Vista in all its glory..not a single tech in the place new how to turn up all the aero effects
I will have to wait to see it in person.
I just installed suse 10.2 btw and it is SLICK.
Fayd
Diamond Member
Originally posted by: 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.
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.
but it's not "just a bunch of disks". JBOD would be just a bunch of disks. Raid 0 is Data Striping.
honestly, you people argue over the stupidest ******.
Guys I am soooooooo sorry I ever posted in this thread, but I must say it has been entertaining reading. :laugh: I work in healthcare too - and I can safely say that none of our 350+ enterprise servers use RAID 0, and all of our 30+ SQL servers use at a minimum RAID 1 and RAID 5, with many of them splitting the data across multiple SANs for further fault-tolerance.gawd, I can't believe I read almost the entire thread...and that I'm actually posting this (although I do ask for forgiveness in advance, grammar nazi's - I had to google a few things to make sure I wasn't completely off base).
For randay - I think I understand where you are coming from, but from a purely grammatical standpoint, you are wrong. You actually made me spend about 15 minutes trying to remember stuff from 7th grade, and this is the best I could come up with:
Redunant array of inexpensive (or independant, if you like that def) disks.
Redundant is describing the array, NOT the disks. The array is made up of disks, yes, but the adjective redundant is describing the noun array. Inexpensive is the adjective describing the disks.
If I'm totally wrong on this, please feel free to correct me. Grammar is not my strong point anymore, although I do strive to be as correct as possible.
In any case, I cannot believe that I spent as much time on this thread as I have - hell, I haven't even posted in over a year...
For randay - I think I understand where you are coming from, but from a purely grammatical standpoint, you are wrong. You actually made me spend about 15 minutes trying to remember stuff from 7th grade, and this is the best I could come up with:
Redunant array of inexpensive (or independant, if you like that def) disks.
Redundant is describing the array, NOT the disks. The array is made up of disks, yes, but the adjective redundant is describing the noun array. Inexpensive is the adjective describing the disks.
If I'm totally wrong on this, please feel free to correct me. Grammar is not my strong point anymore, although I do strive to be as correct as possible.
In any case, I cannot believe that I spent as much time on this thread as I have - hell, I haven't even posted in over a year...
That is the power of the internet.
Like a magnetic field, dragging you into the cytoplasm of irrelevant and sometimes irreverent thought.
Why is it RAID O if it doesn't conform to the defnition? Why isn't it STRIPE 1?
I think it conforms to the original definition of RAID.
As long as two drives or more operate to facililitate the speed or mirroring capablitlities then it is RAID (according that original definition).
Wiki, Microsoft, lada lada, they are making 'suggestions' on why RAID 0 is RAID 0 and not STRIPE 1, but it's still RAID 0 lads
Rogo
I think it conforms to the original definition of RAID.
As long as two drives or more operate to facililitate the speed or mirroring capablitlities then it is RAID (according that original definition).
Wiki, Microsoft, lada lada, they are making 'suggestions' on why RAID 0 is RAID 0 and not STRIPE 1, but it's still RAID 0 lads
Rogo
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
Why is it RAID O if it doesn't conform to the defnition? Why isn't it STRIPE 1?
I think it conforms to the original definition of RAID.
As long as two drives or more operate to facililitate the speed or mirroring capablitlities then it is RAID (according that original definition).
Wiki, Microsoft, lada lada, they are making 'suggestions' on why RAID 0 is RAID 0 and not STRIPE 1, but it's still RAID 0 lads
Rogo
You must have attended the same school as Randay.
I have a degree from a different school.
Why ad hominem to make a point-that's just poor logic.
Rogo
Its because he has no real proof except for his completely self invalidating argument about how "RAID 0 is not a real RAID".
It should be noted that all this bitching about Raid 0 and it is still a very important component of Raid 0+1 which is quickly becoming one of the most common and preferred methods of insuring data integrity.
And while I don't completely agree with Randay, it should be noted that Wikipedia also left the terminology behind RAID somewhat vague to avoid addressing the implications of RAID 0.
"For the purpose of this article, it is best to assume that any system which employs the basic RAID concepts to combine physical disk space for purposes of reliability, capacity, or performance is a RAID system."
Honestly, arguing about whether RAID 0 is real RAID is kind of silly, were it to be renamed, it would simply make the concepts much more confusing.
And while I don't completely agree with Randay, it should be noted that Wikipedia also left the terminology behind RAID somewhat vague to avoid addressing the implications of RAID 0.
"For the purpose of this article, it is best to assume that any system which employs the basic RAID concepts to combine physical disk space for purposes of reliability, capacity, or performance is a RAID system."
Honestly, arguing about whether RAID 0 is real RAID is kind of silly, were it to be renamed, it would simply make the concepts much more confusing.
I'm not arguing for it to be renamed. My point is that it is not redundant just because the acronym says it is. Two physical drives are not redundant by default, which is what randay had originally argued. I don't have a problem with RAID 0 being grouped in with the RAID standard, it makes sense in a way, but not because of disk redundancy. Hell, I even like RAID 0 and use it myself.
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