Previously "Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No. But unless you have mostly linear reads, and a well-tuned
>> system, RAID0 is not that much faster anyways.
> Well-tuned in what sense? There are not much things you
> could do with hard disks these days...Are you talking
> about expensive real hardware RAID 0 cards?
No. But two modern drisks can easily saturate PCI or slower
chipset-internal busses.
> No. But two modern drisks can easily saturate PCI or slower
> chipset-internal busses.
You meant those RAID chipset offered by Intel and Nvidia
are using PCIe nus?
I am using a nForce 570 Ultra.
--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.4
^ ^ 19:13:01 up 1 day 4:54 1 user load average: 3.61 3.46 3.42
? ? (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...ub_addressesa/
Previously "Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No. But two modern drisks can easily saturate PCI or slower
>> chipset-internal busses.
> You meant those RAID chipset offered by Intel and Nvidia
> are using PCIe nus?
PCIe would be ok.
> I am using a nForce 570 Ultra.
No idea what it does for RAID1. I am just saying that
throughput is overrated in many cases and that RAID0
is only a good choice in specific situations (lots of
large files with an access pattern that reads large chunks).
Also RAID0 doubles the failure probability of the individual
disks.
I don't know whether those cheap RAID circuit
is using the PCIe bus at maximum speed...
> No idea what it does for RAID1. I am just saying that
> throughput is overrated in many cases and that RAID0
> is only a good choice in specific situations (lots of
> large files with an access pattern that reads large chunks).
Then I need to setup my stuff using a single disk
to find this out...
> Also RAID0 doubles the failure probability of the individual
> disks.
Always back up your stuff. Fault-tolerance is a lie.
--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.4
^ ^ 19:36:01 up 1 day 5:17 1 user load average: 3.35 3.46 3.44
? ? (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...ub_addressesa/
Previously "Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> PCIe would be ok.
> I don't know whether those cheap RAID circuit
> is using the PCIe bus at maximum speed...
>> No idea what it does for RAID1. I am just saying that
>> throughput is overrated in many cases and that RAID0
>> is only a good choice in specific situations (lots of
>> large files with an access pattern that reads large chunks).
> Then I need to setup my stuff using a single disk
> to find this out...
Do that.
>> Also RAID0 doubles the failure probability of the individual
>> disks.
> Always back up your stuff. Fault-tolerance is a lie.
Well, no. But it primarily reduces expected recovery time,
it does not protect gainst total failure.
>> Then I need to setup my stuff using a single disk
>> to find this out...
> Do that.
later... later... when there is a cheap
15k rpm 500G SATA disks...
>> Always back up your stuff. Fault-tolerance is a lie.
> Well, no. But it primarily reduces expected recovery time,
> it does not protect gainst total failure.
At server level, yes. At disk level.. um.... for the poor,
maybe.
--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.4
^ ^ 20:05:01 up 1 day 5:46 1 user load average: 3.39 3.40 3.39
? ? (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...ub_addressesa/
Previously "Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Then I need to setup my stuff using a single disk
>>> to find this out...
>> Do that.
> later... later... when there is a cheap
> 15k rpm 500G SATA disks...
;-)
>>> Always back up your stuff. Fault-tolerance is a lie.
>> Well, no. But it primarily reduces expected recovery time,
>> it does not protect gainst total failure.
> At server level, yes. At disk level.. um.... for the poor,
> maybe.
I went to RAID1 after I had to restore from backup for the
second time. Of course I did not have any disk failure since
then, so it obviously works! ;-)=)
Squeeze wrote:
>
> Arno Wagner wrote in news:6aj1giF37q1ifU1@mid.individual.net
> > Previously Odiferous <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > "Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > which one is better?
> > > >
> >
> >
> > > They are both appalling drives, with shocking failure rates - as are
> > > practically any new drives shipping from Seagate.
> >
> > > Rather choose Samsung or Hitachi - just about anything other than
> > > Seagate.
>
> > So it is definitive by now.
>
> You mean, Odoriferous 180 degree turn on Seagate is now completed?
What can you even pretend to know about this subject? From my
standpoint, it is clear you have no idea whatsoever.
Perhaps you should consider the power of thought before posting your
misinformed messages.
Duncan
--
Retrodata www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
> I went to RAID1 after I had to restore from backup for the
> second time. Of course I did not have any disk failure since
> then, so it obviously works! ;-)=)
Don't forget to back up the stuff periodically.
For, *NOT ONE* hard disk died before I replaced them
(since my first Seagate ST-251). Might be I am too
lucky.
--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.4
^ ^ 14:16:01 up 1 day 23:57 1 user load average: 3.27 3.26 3.29
? ? (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...ub_addressesa/
Previously "Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I went to RAID1 after I had to restore from backup for the
>> second time. Of course I did not have any disk failure since
>> then, so it obviously works! ;-)=)
Re: Seagate ST3320613AS vs ST3320620NS 
Linear Mode
