Re: [OT] RAID

[Chris Hunter <cjhunter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

'twas only a thought ... the idea was that the DVDs might be
more=20=20
secure against crashes & failures, because once recorded they=20=20
couldn't fail ... guess I had in-mind blue-ray or the other one, and=20=20
an auto-feed DVD duplicator ... but no contest, really ... two or=20=20
three (to cover failure) terrabyte HDs would win hands down on cost ...

Chris


On 13 Jul 2007, at 00:28, Phil Harris wrote:

>
> There's a number of them but they are physically huge,
mechanically=20=20
> complex,
> fairly expensive and the software to drive them tends to be
pretty=20=20
> horrific
> prices too! They also tend to hold about 200 DVDs and at 4.7Gb
each=20=20
> that's
> not even a terrabyte. (I'm assuming dual layer discs would be=20=20
> excluded for
> cost reasons.)
>
> 1Tb hard discs are =A3200 - much easier to handle and a hell of a lot
=
=20
> quicker
> to write to and access and hard disc media itself has to be a
damn=20=20
> tempting
> choice for backup media.
>
> Phil
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx]
>> On Behalf Of Chris Hunter
>> Sent: 12 July 2007 18:48
>> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [ukha_d] [OT] RAID
>>
>> how about an auto-load recordable DVD drive for back-up ...
>> juke-box style ... if there is such a thing ?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> On 12 Jul 2007, at 17:40, Dave Sussman wrote:
>>
>>> I depends upon the RAID card; I've a HighPoint card that
doesn't
>>> support this, nor does it support dynamic resizing of the raid
>>> partition.
>>> Other,
>>> more expensive cards may support this. I'd just mail the
>> manufactures
>>> and ask them.
>>>
>>> I've actually dropped RAID 5 from my server, after a
>> disastrous power
>>> supply problem which caused multiple failures on multiple
discs,
>>> leaving me with a completely broken array that wouldn't
>> rebuild. I've
>>> now abandoned RAID altogether on the system drive and am
>> using a small
>>> 40Gb drive PATA drive which I'm imaging using DriveImage;
>> this means
>>> it's easy for me to get back up and running quickly. The data
>>> partitions are all mirrored and I think for home use this is
almost
>>> better, as if one drive fails then at least you've a
>> standard usable
>>> drive on the mirror.
>>> Ultimately I think I'll use something like drobo for most
>> of my data,
>>> once (if?) they get a NAS version.
>>>
>>> d
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx] On Behalf
>>> Of Rob Mouser
>>> Sent: 12 July 2007 16:42
>>> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [ukha_d] [OT] RAID
>>>
>>> I know the subject comes up from time to time.................
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just a theoretical question. Here is the scenario:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Current server is SATA, no raid and one 80gb system drive.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Need/want to upgrade to RAID 5.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So if a RAID card is added and a further 3 more drives are
>> bolted in.
>>>
>>> Will the raid (or software) config be clever enough to
>> start spanning
>>> over the 4 drives?
>>>
>>> Then could the original 80gb drive be retired.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How do I know the answer to that is going to be 'no' :-).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In other words go from 'no raid' to 'raid 5' without having to
copy
>>> the system partition or re-load the OS.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>