Nagered hard drive;'(..
in [Computer]
|
From: dennis on 23 Jun 2010 06:38 "David WE Roberts" <davidweroberts(a)spamtrap.invalid> wrote in message news:88e06sFsovU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Redundant Array of Inexpensive Discs was impressive in a production > environment, apart from the fact that the discs were anything but > inexpensive. Ah well that was probably in the days of proper RAIDs. The ones where it was done bitwise across the disks and all the spindles and heads were synchronised. They were expensive.
From: Bob Eager on 23 Jun 2010 15:14 On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:38:18 +0100, dennis(a)home wrote: > "David WE Roberts" <davidweroberts(a)spamtrap.invalid> wrote in message > news:88e06sFsovU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > >> Redundant Array of Inexpensive Discs was impressive in a production >> environment, apart from the fact that the discs were anything but >> inexpensive. > > Ah well that was probably in the days of proper RAIDs. The ones where it > was done bitwise across the disks and all the spindles and heads were > synchronised. > They were expensive. The it wouldn't have been called RAID, would it? Disk array, yes, RAID...I think not. -- Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org *lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor
From: D.M.Chapman on 23 Jun 2010 16:40 In article <bMiHoIWWodIMFAo4(a)perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message <slrni23ego.5ab.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, at 02:40:01 on >Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> remarked: > >>The whole point of a RAID is you populate it with eight _different_ >>drives, not 8 identical ones! > >Nonsense. You *can* populate some controllers like that, but it's not >particularly useful unless you are extremely under-funded [1]. Not strictly true - high end stuff follows this pattern. I know HDS use multiple manufacturers (despite making their own drives they still use their competitors drives) albeit at a rather different level to the RAID that most people here are talking about. They use a mix of manufacturers to help avoid firmware issues and higher failure rates on certain batches (think deathstars...). Of course, the drives all have HDS firmware etc on them so it's a bit different :-) Darren
From: Andy Dingley on 23 Jun 2010 16:48 On Jun 23, 10:55 am, Roland Perry <rol...(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: > >The whole point of a RAID is you populate it with eight _different_ > >drives, not 8 identical ones! > > Nonsense. You *can* populate some controllers like that, but it's not > particularly useful unless you are extremely under-funded [1]. "All drives must be equal" sounds like a great plan until it's a year or two after you built the squillion dollar Unfeasible Data Centre, better drives are now cheaper and you'd like to start upgrading to use them. ....but you can't because they won't integrate well, and you can't (even if you could afford to) down the whole lot at once to swap all of them, becasue of course it's an "always on" sort of thing as it's biggest selling point. A little later, and you're reduced to skip-diving to get the legacy parts for it, whilst storage of similar size and performance is sellign for tuppence ha'penny down the road at PC World.
From: Paul Bird on 23 Jun 2010 17:58
Roland Perry wrote: > In message <BbednRHroYQSK7zRnZ2dnUVZ7rWdnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk>, at > 08:23:48 on Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Jon Green <jonsg(a)deadspam.com> remarked: >>> Don't think a reformat will fix them either as some on t'internet think. >> >> A low level reformat can sometimes help, but IME it usually only >> delays the inevitable. > > It won't actually write a "low level" format pattern to the drive, but > will serve to mark some sectors as "bad". However, it won't stop the rot > spreading. .. . . and the rot can spread remarkably quickly. Hours in my experience. PB |