On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 02:28:10AM +, T o n g wrote:
> Ok, seems everyone thinks this way. My justification was, HD normally not
> dies all of sudden. There should be signs of failing sectors. When it
> happens, I might have a better chance salvage from the other copy. Yeah,
> I agree, this
On 9/16/2010 5:57 PM, Greg Madden wrote:
On Thursday 16 September 2010 08:14:53 T o n g wrote:
Hi,
How practical is to create a simplest and cheapest RAID, using 2
partitions on the same disk, combining them as a RAID drive?
By "practical" I meant,
- I would assume less than 0.
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 16:14 +, T o n g wrote:
> Hi,
>
> How practical is to create a simplest and cheapest RAID, using 2
> partitions on the same disk, combining them as a RAID drive?
It is not practical at all since if you loose the drive, you loose both
partition, thus d
On Thursday 16 September 2010 08:14:53 T o n g wrote:
> Hi,
>
> How practical is to create a simplest and cheapest RAID, using 2
> partitions on the same disk, combining them as a RAID drive?
>
> By "practical" I meant,
>
> - I would assume less than 0.01% pe
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:14:53 +, T o n g wrote:
> How practical is to create a simplest and cheapest RAID, using 2
> partitions on the same disk, combining them as a RAID drive?
>
> By "practical" I meant,
>
> - I would assume less than 0.01% people would d
Hi,
How practical is to create a simplest and cheapest RAID, using 2
partitions on the same disk, combining them as a RAID drive?
By "practical" I meant,
- I would assume less than 0.01% people would do that so I can't find
any documents.
- Having 2 partitions might n
6 matches
Mail list logo
