On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 12:25, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Of course. As we all know SCSI cables never break. There must
> > be something
> > about the IDE command-set which causes copper wires to corrode. :-#
>
> (I know this is a joke, but) actually there is. IDE has a
> wonderful feature of only
On Friday, April 5, 2002, at 03:34 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
Of course. As we all know SCSI cables never break. There must
be something
about the IDE command-set which causes copper wires to corrode. :-#
(I know this is a joke, but) actually there is. IDE has a
wonderful feature of only t
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 10:27, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 2, 2002, at 06:22 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
> > Another thing, you should have a separate cable for each disk
> > you want to be
> > independant. So for RAID-1 you should have two cables so that a cable
> > failure won't lose y
On Tuesday, April 2, 2002, at 06:22 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
Another thing, you should have a separate cable for each disk
you want to be
independant. So for RAID-1 you should have two cables so that a cable
failure won't lose your data. For a RAID-5 with 5 disks you
want 5 cables.
This d
hi ya dave
ypppers on your comments...
another major point...
- raid protects aginst disk failure ... but if raid wont
come back online ... ( not mountable ) ... you lose all
data ...
-->> make sure your data is backed elsewhere
and tested
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Dave Sherohm
On Wed, 3 Apr 2002 01:15, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> Don't know where you got the "typically 5 disks" bit from. RAID5
> costs you one drive's worth of capacity. Also, if I were to set up a
> 5-disk RAID5 for critical data, I'd go with 4 active disks, plus one
> spare.
I've noticed that 5 disks seem
On Wed, 3 Apr 2002 00:29, Alvin Oga wrote:
> > Chunk size does not matter for RAID-1, but does matter for other RAID
> > levels.
>
> humm ..thought was the otehr way ... time for me to go look at some
> raid source code i suppose .. when time permits
The chunk size determines physical location of
Since I'm feeling bored at the moment...
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 02:29:28PM -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
> typically a minimum of 2 disks used for raid0 or raid1...
> raid1(mirroring) protects against one disk failure
> ( one disk's capacity is used as a redundant copy and not for user)
>
hi ya russell
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2002 13:48, Alvin Oga wrote:
> > chunk size does NOT matter for raid5...
>
> Chunk size does not matter for RAID-1, but does matter for other RAID levels.
humm ..thought was the otehr way ... time for me to go look at some
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002 13:48, Alvin Oga wrote:
> chunk size does NOT matter for raid5...
Chunk size does not matter for RAID-1, but does matter for other RAID levels.
> if your disk was partitioned as... 2K bytes/inode...
You probably mean 2K blocks. The number of bytes per inode just determines
t
hi ya
chunk size does NOT matter for raid5...
if your disk was partitioned as... 2K bytes/inode...
chunksize of 32 will allow you to write 64K of data
in one "chunk" to disks
chunksize of 128 will allow you to write 256K of data
in one "chunk" to disks...
11 matches
Mail list logo
