🚀 go-pugleaf

" Miro" <miro01@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:403e7c97$0$28870$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1aa7bde53e86577498a268@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <403DDBE5.67A77D68@ozemail.com.au>,
> > audiobANTISPAM@ozemail.com.au says...
> > > Scott Coutts wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yeah, sure. I dont doubt that it can be faster. But it's also true
> that
> > > > they can be slower... when all the motherboards started coming out a
> > > > while back with built in RAID controllers, people were going out and
> > > > setting up their RAID arrays and thinking how much faster it would
> be...
> > > > but those setups often just dont cut it (: They're OK for backup
> > > > purposes I guess.
> > >
> > > RAID 1 generally offers higher performance than a single drive with
> > > twice the risk of failure.
> >
> > RAID 1 is a mirror - two drives hold EXACTLY the same information. While
> > you have twice the chance for a drive to fail, you only have half the
> > chance for data loss due to failure of any drive. In the real world that
> > means that loosing a single drive does not impact the user.
> >
> > RAID 0 is a stripe across two disks - this provides twice the chance for
> > mechanical failure and twice the chance to loose everything in the event
> > of a mechanical failure. Loosing either drive results in the complete
> > loss of everything.
> >
> > RAID 5 is a stripe across 3+ disks with a parity stripe used to rebuild
> > the other drives in the event of a failure. In this situation you can
> > tipple your chance for a mechanical failure, but you benefit from being
> > able to replace the defective drive and rebuild the entire array without
> > the loss of data. During the time a drive is lost, you will notice a
> > significant performance hit.
> >
> > Mechanical failure does not always mean data loss - only RAID 0 in the
> > example above suffers from data loss.
>
> Really, what happens if you blow two drives in a raid 5 setup ? Dont say
it
> never happens, it did.
>
>

I'm still confused about those RAID answers. Why the hell cant you use a
simple raid setup to have yet another HD attached to a computer and that HD
simply for backups? Eg, similar to having a Master on primary and a Master
on Secondary off the motherboard. Thus, if C screws up and as you have been
good people and done backups all the time, just attach raid drive to primary
or secondary port, boot off Drive Image 7 CD (just for example, not that I
am pushing the program) and restore. Buggered if I know why a suddenly
scrambled C drive that wasn't scrambled because of a hardware fault would
affect a raid mounted HD as suggested above.