🚀 go-pugleaf

David H. Lipman <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
message news:%D9Ab.219$227.65@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...

> I tried real hard to be a nice guy and let
> you state your point in a rational way.

Obvious lie with your original comment to me, liar.

> You have failed to provide any information to back up your statements.

You in spades, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

> All you did was curse and name call.

All you have ever managed is pathetic excuse for bullshit.

> It is neither professional nor a positive sign of good character.

What a fucking wanker.

> Therefore I have to come to the negative
> conclusion that you are a character w/o any
> redeeming qualities.  But I did give you a chance.

What a fucking wanker.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of your
predicament better than that pathetic effort, Lipman.

> Having said that...

> The Dell Dimension 4550 is an excellent
> Pentium 4 platform that uses the i845 chipset.

Duh. Pity RAID5 SCSI cannot be justified with that personal desktop
system The only sensible approach is IDE with that system.

> I see no reason to negate the use of RAID
> 5 SCSI or RAID 5 SATA on this platform.

Your problem. Anyone with a clue can work that out.

> In comparison the i4004, a 4 bit CPU, got us to the moon

Completely and utterly irrelevant to what makes any sense
on a personal desktop system like the one being discussed.

> and the number of MIPS the Dell Dim. 4550
> platform significantly outperforms a VAX PDP11.

No such animal. Thanks for that VERY spectacular
footshot, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

Thats the problem with posturing, you look extremely silly indeed
in the eyes of those who know anything about those systems.

> There is nothing foolish about making the data used on a PC reliable.

RAID5 SCSI aint the only way to make a PC
reliable, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

> On the contrary, it is fool hardy to not protect data assets.

That aint the only way to protect data assets,
you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

You dont even know if the particular desktop system being discussed
even has any 'data assets', you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

> The most important aspect of a computer is the data.

You dont even know if the particular desktop system being discussed
even has any 'data assets', you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

> This is the information age and information is
> what is stored on the hard disk sub-system.

Wota windy pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

> If the Original Poster (OP) indicates that she needs
> 250Gbs to store the content of her photography
> than the loss of said data can be catastrophic.

RAID5 SCSI aint the only way to store photos
reliably, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

And wont actually do a damned thing to protect them against
theft of the system, fire, flood etc anyway. When the photos are
adequately protected against those real risks, she wont actually
need RAID5 SCSI, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

> Unfortunately the use if one hard disk to store this valuable data leads
> to a single point of failure and the possible complete loss of her data.

See above.

> What is the cost of data loss to the OP ?  That is the relevant point here.

See above.

> Not the cost of the disk sub-systems as compared to the platform used.

See above.

> There is nothing in the computer world that states you have to spend
> $20K on a computing platform to spend $2K on the disk subsystem.

Pity no one ever said it did, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

> It just doesn't work that way.

You clearly aint gotta fucking clue about what real backup involves.

Hint: RAID5 SCSI doesnt cut it.

> You don't compare the platform cost vs the disk subsystem cost.

Never said you do, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

> You look at the whole cost of a complete
> system based upon the need for the system.

Duh. And you have to have real backup if the data matters, fool.

Hint: RAID5 SCSI doesnt cut it.

> The platform, storage and backup media is all a part of that overall cost.

Duh. Pity RAID5 SCSI alone doesnt cut it. And if she has protection
against theft of the system, fire, flood etc, she wont actually need
RAID5 SCSI, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

> The cost of restoring lost data is always *much higher*
> than the cost of maintaining and or protecting the data.

More utterly mindless pig ignorant drivel with a personal desktop
system which has adequate backup to protect against the very
real risks of theft of the system, fire, flood etc.

> In addition as an external sub-system, if the dell Dim.
> 4550 platform itself should fail, the disk sub-system
> is easily ported over to a replacement platform.

Just as true of other much more viable
approaches to real backup of a system like that.

> Today the OP might have the Dim. 4550 tomorrow,
> the OP might buy a replacement platform.

You dont need RAID5 SCSI to be able to do
that, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

> As a subsystem, it is easily moved to the newer platform

Just as true of other approaches than RAID5
SCSI, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

> thus the overall cost is spread over a longer period of time.

Just as true of other approaches than RAID5
SCSI, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

> The OP has to perform a personal Cost Benefit Analysis

Mindlessly silly. All she has to do is have adequate backup
to protect against the very real risks of theft of the system,
fire, flood etc. Once that essential is in place, only a fool
bothers with 'a personal Cost Benefit Analysis' with RAID5
SCSI with a system and application like that.

AND even if the OP was that stupid, that would STILL
result in the RAID5 SCSI approach being binned.

> and has to determine what is the cost to her if
> all the objects of her photographic art were lost.

RAID5 SCSI doesnt do a damned thing about the
very real risks of theft of the system, fire, flood etc.

> 250GB is alot of data.  The OP has to ask herself.... How
> many DVD discs would it take to backup the data ?  How
> many CDROMs ?  What is the cost of a tape backup system ?

Pity RAID5 SCSI doesnt do a damned thing about the
very real risks of theft of the system, fire, flood etc.

> The OP has asserted that she will go with a "large second
> drive".  Lets assume that drive is 250GB.  If she doesn't go
> with a reliable storage solution she MUST have a tertiary
> storage solution in case the "large second drive" fails.

Duh. Pity the RAID5 SCSI you suggested doesnt qualify.
And is stupid if she does have a reliable backup mechanism.

> If she was to go for say a USB2 AIT2 tape drive she would
> still be looking at $900~$1400 for the tape drive and atleast
> $45 per tape and it would take all nite to perform the backup.

Another terminally stupid approach
for real backup of a system like that.

> So if you compare the cost of a backup solution
> for 250GBs worth of data as compared to the
> cost of a reliable storage solution they equalize.

Wota pity that RAID5 SCSI doesnt protect against the
very real risks of theft of the system, fire, flood etc.

> Then when you look at the benefits of RAID 5
> it actually outweighs the benefits of a cheap
> large drive and a backup solution.

Wota pity that RAID5 SCSI doesnt protect against the
very real risks of theft of the system, fire, flood etc.

> If one drive in the array fails then the OP would still be
> able to access her data and then buy a replacement
> drive and then rebuild the data striped to the drive.

And if the system gets stolen, the house or room burns
down, the house gets flooded, she's fucked, you fool.

> This is alot quicker than restoring
> 250GB from 2 to 3 100GB AIT tapes.

Only a fool uses AIT tapes in that particular situation.

Tho that would at least provide adequate protection
against the very real risks of theft of the system,
fire, flood etc. RAID5 SCSI doesnt.

> There is no foolishness in anything that I have stated

Wrong. As always. All the drivel above is just that, pig ignorant drivel.

> nor have I stooped to your level of cursing and ridiculing.

Your problem, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

You've just lied instead.

> The rest of my replies are inline....


> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> David H. Lipman <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote

>>> And what does the model 4550 have to do with it ?

>> Its the system being discussed where the
>> cost of RAID5 SCSI cant be justified, fool.

> And what is the cost of replacing the 250GB of data if the drive fails ?

None, zero, nada, ziltch if she has adequate backup to protect
against the very real risks of theft of the system, fire, flood etc.

> what is the opputunity cost in that ?

True in spades if RAID5 SCSI is used and the entire system
gets stolen, the house burns down or gets flooded, etc etc etc.

>>> It is a computing platform, it has a CPU and RAM and
>>> processes using a high level GUI based operating system.

>> And is a fairly basic desktop system
>> where IDE is perfectly adequate, fool.

> IDE, SCSI, SATA, PATA - one drive leads
> to a single point of failure and 250GB of data
> lost on just one drive is very, very costly.

Anyone with a clue has adequate backup to protect against
the very real risks of theft of the system, fire, flood etc.

Wota pity that RAID5 SCSI is useless with those very real risks.

>>> So what's your point ?

>> Even you should be able to bullshit you way out of your
>> predicament better than that pathetic effort, Lipman.

> Childish, moronic, and pitiful way to make a statement don't you think ?

Even you should be able to bullshit you way out of your
predicament better than that pathetic effort, Lipman.

And you're doing precisely what you howl about anyway,
you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist/flagrant hypocrite.

> since UseNet data is cached and stored
> is THIS the way you want to be viewed ?

Yep, fine by me. That might be why I use my real name, fool.

> You come off as an ignorant ranting child.

You come off as a pathetic excuse for
a bullshit artist and flagrant hypocrite, child.

>>> You should have seen what I was doing
>>> with IBM286 based MCA based platforms.

>> This is where we're all supposed to swoon is it Lipman ?

> No

Yep.

> it is meant to point out the fact that the Dell Dim. 4550 is no "dog".

No one ever said it was, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

> It a high end system

Pigs arse it is. Its a very average system today.

> that can outperform a system of just a dozen
> years ago that wasused a server doing alot
> more and cost thousands of dollars more.

All completely and utterly irrelevant to what was actually being
discussed, what makes sense in a system like that today.

>> Aint got the remotest relevance to what makes sense on
>> a  4550 TODAY, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit arstist.

> You show that you are actually a computer illiterate fool

Guess which pathetic little posturing bullshit artist has
just made a VERY spectacular fool of itself, yet again ?

I've been doing it since before you were even born thanks, child.

> who's only way out of a discussion is to curse, rant and verbally harass.
> That what separates an expert like me from and newbie user like yourself.

Guess which pathetic little posturing bullshit artist has
just made a VERY spectacular fool of itself, yet again ?

> I get paid for my opinions and when I discuss
> computer technology and application a room full
> of people become quiet, listen and take notes.

Pigs arse they do. They just piss themselve laughing
at the spectacular fool you make of yourself and
make snide remarks about you behind your back.

> That's how I have come to the position of working
> for a Fortune 100 IT outsourcing company and have
> been contracted to (censored) for close to a dozen years.

A fart in the bath, child. Some of us have been doing
that since before you were even born thanks, child.

> That's it for me.

Great, there is only so much posturing anyone can take.

> I have wasted enough time rebuking you.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.

> However, those who are reading this thread will hopefully think about
> their data and ramifications of catastrophic data loss and how to
> safeguard their data and protect themselves from a major loss.

And only the fools will be stupid enough to rely
on RAID5 SCSI to protect themselves against
all risks to the data they cant readily replace.

Anyone with a clue will protect themselves against the
very real risks of theft of the system, fire, flood etc and
when they do that, wont need RAID5 SCSI with a personal
desktop system which doesnt need very high availability.

> Mr. David H. Lipman

Wota fucking wanker. Only a fucking wanker puts Mr. on the front his name today.