R.A.I.D is...

[kohutek]

mah teacher always told me I was the smart-un

har har



shinerburke is right ...

randal

 

[Soybomb]

You're all wrong, its an unagreed upon defination so both are actually right or both are wrong. As you've all pointed out each source can call it whatever it wants, and since tehre is no governing body on acronyms...they are all right. Did you know that POP is both post office protocol and Point of Presence? hehe

 

[Namuna]

No, We're all RIGHT.

It WAS 'Inexpensive' but NOW it's 'Independent'



<< why would it be 'independent' disks? The whole point is to make them one disk, not multiple independent ones. >>



It would be 'independent' because that's WHAT RAID IS! It's 2 or more disks acting as one...2 or more usually redundant, INDEPENDENT disks acting as one.

You'll also notice the Title of my Post...RAID is...NOT RAID was

So, shinerburke is RIGHT because 'Inexpensive' is what it USED TO BE and I'm right because 'Independent' is what it is NOW.

No more confusion, I go to bed now. Bye bye now, take care then.

 

[Valhalla1]

why would it change from inexpensive to independant? that just doesn't make sense.. and the drives are even more inexpensive than ever, so now more than ever it shold be &quot;indexpensive&quot;

 

[Soybomb]

I'll admit thats what it is now and only now when you show me &quot;standards comittee&quot; proof

 

[shiner]

Here's how to settle this....go somewhere that tech geeks gather and call R.A.I.D. Redundant Array of Independent Disks and see how long between the time the words leave your mouth and the first snicker is. I'm guessing about .0000001 milliseconds.

I've had a computer since my old TI-99A and I've worked professionally in the I.T. field for 7 years now and I have NEVER heard anyone use the term independent instead of inexpensive when referring to R.A.I.D.

 

[N8Magic]

I have heard otherwise I am afraid! (might be a Canadian thing)

The whole point behind RAID is NOT generally the price issue. (ESPECIALLY now that drives are so cheap)

Large corporations will buy RAID setups for speed and REDUNDANCY. For a server with mission critical information, you would MUCH rather have a 60GB RAID-1 setup (mirrored, so if one drive craps out, the other still contains all the data with no loss of service.)

If they are interested in speed and nothing else, they will go with a RAID-0 setup which stripes the data to two or more drives.

Also, RAID setups (new ones anyways) are HOT-SWAPPABLE. So if one drive in the array craps out, it can be swapped out for a new one and the other drives can rebuild it without loss of data.

If you were a business (I don't care what anyone says, RAID configurations are meant for business, NOT home users) would you care about price? I mean REALLY. You would want the most stable, reliable, and efficient system you could buy. Price would not be a concern, unless the price got ridiculous.

The end.

 

[Namuna]

Uh-huh,
You've NEVER heard 'Independent' huh?

Welllll, let's see...I linked to Microsoft's site where they CLEARLY say 'Independent'.
N8Magic linked to Webster's Dictionary that says it's 'Independent'. Here's yet ANOTHER Link to the scsifaq.org site that says it's 'Independent'.

Geee, I wonder what kind of 'Tech Geeks' YOU hang out with cause it seems EVERYBODY else thinks it's 'Independent'.

 

[bonk102]

all your _____________ belong to us!!!