Archives
Archives
| From: | Stroller <stroller@××××××××××××××××××.uk> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-user@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} Why RAID1? | ||
| Date: | Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:20:47 | ||
| Message-Id: | 7B2EF3F7-F54D-4783-B76A-3087A2D98589@stellar.eclipse.co.uk | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} Why RAID1? by KH |
||
| 1 | On 18 Dec 2008, at 11:44, KH wrote: |
| 2 | > Stroller schrieb: |
| 3 | >> |
| 4 | >> On 17 Dec 2008, at 10:25, KH wrote: |
| 5 | >>> ... |
| 6 | >>> Also there have been articles that if one drive of a raid dies |
| 7 | >>> there is |
| 8 | >>> a chance that you cannot recover your data. This is based on the |
| 9 | >>> theory, |
| 10 | >>> that one of the other drives have hidden errors. The chances for |
| 11 | >>> this |
| 12 | >>> grow with the size of the hd. |
| 13 | >> |
| 14 | >> [Citation Needed] |
| 15 | >> |
| 16 | >> |
| 17 | > http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/21/2126252&from=rss |
| 18 | > http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=162 |
| 19 | |
| 20 | That article is bollocks, and widely debunked. |
| 21 | |
| 22 | Stroller. |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} Why RAID1? | KH <gentoo-user@××××××××××××××××.de> |