| 1 |
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 18:41:47 -0700 |
| 2 |
"Julio Cazares" <cazares@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Raid also does not offer a better offering because it multiplies the |
| 5 |
> probability of failure 2 times. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I disagree with this point, in this case RAID *assumes* a drive will |
| 8 |
die, and prepaires for it, so no information is lost, and the drive can |
| 9 |
be replaced with minimum effort. RAID isn't there to prevent drive |
| 10 |
failure, just to handle it better when it occures. A more apt anaology |
| 11 |
with the car tyres would be a large lorry, where critical tires are |
| 12 |
doubled up, so that if one blow's out you don't loose control. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Though RAID has and always will work best as a "RAD" or "RAED". |
Archives