Archives
Archives
| From: | KH <gentoo-user@××××××××××××××××.de> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-user@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} Why RAID1? | ||
| Date: | Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:30:31 | ||
| Message-Id: | 494A5E83.5030209@konstantinhansen.de | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} Why RAID1? by Stroller |
||
| 1 | Stroller schrieb: |
| 2 | > |
| 3 | > On 18 Dec 2008, at 11:44, KH wrote: |
| 4 | >> Stroller schrieb: |
| 5 | >>> |
| 6 | >>> On 17 Dec 2008, at 10:25, KH wrote: |
| 7 | >>>> ... |
| 8 | >>>> Also there have been articles that if one drive of a raid dies |
| 9 | >>>> there is |
| 10 | >>>> a chance that you cannot recover your data. This is based on the |
| 11 | >>>> theory, |
| 12 | >>>> that one of the other drives have hidden errors. The chances for this |
| 13 | >>>> grow with the size of the hd. |
| 14 | >>> |
| 15 | >>> [Citation Needed] |
| 16 | >>> |
| 17 | >>> |
| 18 | >> http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/21/2126252&from=rss |
| 19 | >> http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=162 |
| 20 | > |
| 21 | > That article is bollocks, and widely debunked. |
| 22 | > |
| 23 | > Stroller. |
| 24 | [Citation Needed] ;-) |
| 25 | |
| 26 | kh |