gogogadgetearl

comments

• just because i could find anywhere else to put this sad news.
  • posted by: TopHat
  • [ 2007.06.14 | 1:19:22pm ]
• this too.
  • posted by: TopHat
  • [ 2007.06.14 | 1:22:10pm ]
• doesn't it take a serious performance hit on heavy disc writing situations?  I understand the usage of such a configuration when it comes to server backups but why would a normal human being need such an array?  Wouldn't 1 or 0 be sufficient?
  • posted by: claryam
  • [ 2007.06.14 | 1:26:50pm ]
• ha, I saw that obama girl video on Newsbusters.Org.  Troubling times we live in if you ask me.
  • posted by: claryam
  • [ 2007.06.14 | 1:41:04pm ]
• RAID 5 only has performance issues under heavy workloads that include disk writes that are smaller than the capacity of a single stripe [1].  these situations are only common in databases that use the "bit" data type or other minutely small data types.  for home PC use, heavy writing of very small data types is extremely rare, and the performance of a RAID 5 array is generally equal to or better than that of a RAID 0 array (depending on the number of disks in the RAID 5 array).
  
  a RAID 1 array wouldn't provide a performance boost, and a RAID 0 wouldn't provide the same data protection.  so, to answer your question...no.  :-)
  • posted by: earl, THE earl
  • [ 2007.06.14 | 2:38:23pm ]
• mmmmm....RAID 5....::drool::....
  • posted by: claryam
  • [ 2007.06.15 | 1:33:25pm ]
• LOL
  • posted by: earl, THE earl
  • [ 2007.06.16 | 4:49:35pm ]

post a comment