| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Comments:
<0> Downstream: 870.45 KBytes/s Upstream: 87.04 KBytes/s
<0> ?? speedtest
<1> Download Speed: 7679 kbps (959.9 KB/sec transfer rate)
<1> Upload Speed: 5390 kbps (673.8 KB/sec transfer rate)
<2> lol
<0> <- leeching Supranos :P
<2> :o
<0> nice torrent
<0> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/917077.mspx
<0> Too bad I dont use IE :]
<0> Inside.Man.TS.XviD-TFF
<0> V.For.Vendetta.TS.XViD-HooKah
<0> "/
<2> hmm
<0> error: Please install Pri/d0 and Sec/D0 drives or Pri/d1 and Sec/D1 to configure a mirror mode array.
<2> http://bafsoft.ath.cx:26000/listen.pls
<2> ^ tune in to baf radio
<2> Jefreymon!
<0> I got XM fired up :]
<2> :(
<2> fire up my radio :P
<0> XM sounds good :P
<2> :(
<2> mine sounds good
<2> tis a 128kbps stream
<0> [BAF64]: wich RAID do you like
<2> RAID
<2> why raid? :P
<2> i'd say RAID 0+1
<2> speed + redundancy
<0> im not going to use RAID now
<1> Raid 5
<0> 5
<0> omg
<1> speed + redundancy + less space wasted
<0> theres a guy looking to lose all his data :>
<2> ?
<2> whats wrong with 5
<1> no Raid 5 is very secure
<1> :)
<1> widely used in the industry
<1> on critical servers
<2> raid 5 is basically 0+1
<2> just with ... better implementation
<0> http://www.acnc.com/04_01_05.html
<1> nah
<1> completely different
<0> look at that mess
<0> THATS messed up
<0> hehe
<1> nope
<1> it's not
<1> it's Raid 0 with parity
<1> if a drive dies
<0> how do you even know what drive something is on that way
<1> it appears as 1 logical volume
<1> duh
<1> :)
<0> yeah but
<0> its all over those drives
<1> so ?
<1> you don't see that
<0> what if two go at the same time
<1> that's where Raid 6
<1> steps in
<1> :)
<0> hehe
<1> the chances of 2 simultaneous failures
<1> is well quite slim
<0> its a chance I wont take with my stuff :/
<1> lol
<2> unless
<1> Raid 5 is more secure
<2> well
<1> then independant drives
<1> :)
<2> the chance is slimmer if your drives are from differnet batches
<1> so you have 5 drives
<1> drive 1 dies
<1> you loose all the data
<1> on drive 1
<1> drive 2-5 are ok
<1> if it was Raid 5
<1> you didn't loose anything
<0> what happens if drive #1 dies with raid 5
<1> as long as drive 1 gets replaced before 1 more drive from 2-5 dies
<0> you put another drive in...the data from the dead drive is where?
<1> the data is intact
<1> it's rebuilt
<1> from the parity info
<1> in drive 2-5
<0> ah
<1> using XOR logic
<1> end result=nothing is lost
<0> I see why you think thats good
<1> the entire computer industry uses it
<1> :)
<1> web servers
<1> data ceneter servers
<1> center
<1> critical servers
<0> Mainboard: IC7/IC7-G(Intel i875P-ICH5)
<0> can I run it on my MB?
<1> in software using Windows 2003 server
<1> or
<1> in hardware by buying an expensive 3rd party raid controller
<1> :)
<0> ok, ill stick to IDE then :P
<1> well
<1> SATA
<1> :)
<1> Raid runs ontop of IDE or SATA or SCSI
<1> btw
<1> what you mean is independant disks
<1> http://www.acnc.com/04_01_06.html
<1> this is pretty much the ultimate
<1> tho
<1> :)
<0> 4 drives
<1> min
<0> thats alot of backup
<1> max is 32
<1> raid 5's min is 3drive
<1> Raid 0+1 is 4 drive min
<0> 0+1 looks good to me
<1> still 4 drives min
<1> :)
<1> need 2 drives in Rai 0 array which is then mirrored to a 2nd Raid 0 array
<0> true but if two go at the same time I might still be ok
<1> therefore min 4 drives
<0> I mirror now with 2 drives
<0> :P
<1> yah
<1> the 0 is just for increased speed
<1> raid 1 only requires 2 drives min
<1> actually max
<1> too
<1> :)
<2> http://irc.bafsoft.com/stats/allegro/
<2> Cpuroast, tune in
<2> heh
<0> I dont want 4 drives running all the time :/
<2> then dont get RAID
<1> the idea is to get lots of storage
<1> securely
<1> with redundancy
<1> to sustain 1 or 2 drive failures
<0> yeah
<1> without any loss of data
<0> I have one drive running 24/7 and I turn on the mirror drive every few days/weeks
Return to
#dsl
or
Go to some related
logs:
#narcotics
#computers
#stocks
#computers
#gentoo
#beginner
trigomaq
#sex
GOP + What does it stand for
#sex
|
|