"Dattron" <Dattron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F8D2814A-7696-4E30-BEF0-CF45EBEDD815@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> Corrections to spelling errors sorry....
>
> It's not twice the chance of loosing data, it's the same chance. Two (new)
> identical drives in raid-0 will be rated for the same run time before
> failure. This is referred to as MTBF = Mean Time Before Failure. All
> Electronic equipment should have this rating in some form in thousands of
> hours. Of course if you pair a 5 year old drive with a new drive your up
> time will
> probably be significantly hindered. lol[/color]


Heh, you're pretty dopey, aren't you?

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability[/url]

That page is likely to confuse you, as you do not understand the very basics
of Probability. I'll try to explain in simple terms.

If you have two identical drives with an MTFB of 4 years, for example, the
risk of having owning a hard drive that fails, is doubled.

It is twice as likely that you will have a failed hard drive, in three
years.

It is twice as likely that one of them would have failed within three years.

You have doubled the chance of experiencing a hard drive failure, in one
year.

You have doubled the chance of experiencing a hard drive failure, in two
years.

You have doubled the chance of experiencing a hard drive failure, in three
years.

You have doubled the chance of experiencing a hard drive failure, in one
hundred years.

Are you getting the picture?

Maybe thinking of it like this is helpful:

If you have one hundred hard drives, do you think the likelihood of having a
failure in one year is the same as if you only had one? No! The risk of
having a failure is one hundred times greater than it would be if you only
had one.

So getting back to two drives - you have twice the chance of having a hard
drive that fails. If they are in RAID-0, you will lose data on both drives
if one of them fails.

Therefore, the chance of losing data is twice as likely.

I hope you can grasp this simple fact. It may help you in general life.

Do you understand now? If you don't, I really cannot help any further.

ss.

"Dattron" <Dattron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B06B1B99-7A44-4E76-8C36-AB236A0775BC@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> Agreed two drive does not offer twice the failure rate. It's almost
> certain
> that one drive will fail first. However the MTBF is probably close to 3
> years, and having a single drive will prob fail just about at the same
> MTBF
> time. So it does not double the failure possible in a raid -0 config. If
> fact
> if the home user can manage it, Raid-0 is a significant performance boost
> over a single drive config. Double you space with raid -0 and run and
> external usb 2 drive to ghost and image, as it should be. :)[/color]

Read my other reply to you, and then hopefully you will not continue to
agree with one of the biggest retards in the newsgroup.

ss.

"forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote in message
news:ORP9OAZgIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
> NO idiot... the failure of one critical drive compared to the loss of two
> critical drives is the same.[/color]

No it is not. Wow, you are dumb!

What is a 'critical' drive, anyway? Are non-critical drives more likely to
fail or not, because they are not 'critical'?
[color=blue]
> If I have two 2 critical drives, the failure of either one 1 drive results
> in loss of data ...[/color]

Well done - and if they are on RAID-0, you lose data on both.
[color=blue]
> what the flock 2 in RAID has to do with it ... is a[/color]

See above.
[color=blue]
> moronic low grade mathematical discussion.[/color]

LOL, yes it is!
[color=blue]
> You people associate 2 drives with double....incorrect ... study more.[/color]

Study more? LOL! You still do not get it, do you?

Did you even go to school?

ss.

yes, I am just a little so I guess I just like my raid :)

....and now I am a troll ;)

"Synapse Syndrome" wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Dattron" <Dattron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F8D2814A-7696-4E30-BEF0-CF45EBEDD815@microsoft.com...[color=green]
> > Corrections to spelling errors sorry....
> >
> > It's not twice the chance of loosing data, it's the same chance. Two (new)
> > identical drives in raid-0 will be rated for the same run time before
> > failure. This is referred to as MTBF = Mean Time Before Failure. All
> > Electronic equipment should have this rating in some form in thousands of
> > hours. Of course if you pair a 5 year old drive with a new drive your up
> > time will
> > probably be significantly hindered. lol[/color]
>
>
> Heh, you're pretty dopey, aren't you?
>
> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability[/url]
>
> That page is likely to confuse you, as you do not understand the very basics
> of Probability. I'll try to explain in simple terms.
>
> If you have two identical drives with an MTFB of 4 years, for example, the
> risk of having owning a hard drive that fails, is doubled.
>
> It is twice as likely that you will have a failed hard drive, in three
> years.
>
> It is twice as likely that one of them would have failed within three years.
>
> You have doubled the chance of experiencing a hard drive failure, in one
> year.
>
> You have doubled the chance of experiencing a hard drive failure, in two
> years.
>
> You have doubled the chance of experiencing a hard drive failure, in three
> years.
>
> You have doubled the chance of experiencing a hard drive failure, in one
> hundred years.
>
> Are you getting the picture?
>
> Maybe thinking of it like this is helpful:
>
> If you have one hundred hard drives, do you think the likelihood of having a
> failure in one year is the same as if you only had one? No! The risk of
> having a failure is one hundred times greater than it would be if you only
> had one.
>
> So getting back to two drives - you have twice the chance of having a hard
> drive that fails. If they are in RAID-0, you will lose data on both drives
> if one of them fails.
>
> Therefore, the chance of losing data is twice as likely.
>
> I hope you can grasp this simple fact. It may help you in general life.
>
> Do you understand now? If you don't, I really cannot help any further.
>
> ss.
>
>
>[/color]

I am not certain if I saw the other reply and I do not want to offend anyone.
However I beleive the only thing that can hurt a raid -0 besides a controler
card with bad error correction, is to match an old drive with a new drive in
the array.

"Synapse Syndrome" wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Dattron" <Dattron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B06B1B99-7A44-4E76-8C36-AB236A0775BC@microsoft.com...[color=green]
> > Agreed two drive does not offer twice the failure rate. It's almost
> > certain
> > that one drive will fail first. However the MTBF is probably close to 3
> > years, and having a single drive will prob fail just about at the same
> > MTBF
> > time. So it does not double the failure possible in a raid -0 config. If
> > fact
> > if the home user can manage it, Raid-0 is a significant performance boost
> > over a single drive config. Double you space with raid -0 and run and
> > external usb 2 drive to ghost and image, as it should be. :)[/color]
>
> Read my other reply to you, and then hopefully you will not continue to
> agree with one of the biggest retards in the newsgroup.
>
> ss.
>
>
>[/color]

There may be an 'average mean time between failures' of 3 years, but I have
seen failures in 3 minutes, 3 weeks, 3 months!
That's why I don't use RAID0.
But I also have a 10 year old 1.6GB drive thet is still spinning fine. LOL


"Dattron" <Dattron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:43F1353D-B864-4092-9CB0-74AE0F483C7F@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
>I am not certain if I saw the other reply and I do not want to offend
>anyone.
> However I beleive the only thing that can hurt a raid -0 besides a
> controler
> card with bad error correction, is to match an old drive with a new drive
> in
> the array.
>
> "Synapse Syndrome" wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "Dattron" <Dattron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:B06B1B99-7A44-4E76-8C36-AB236A0775BC@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
>> > Agreed two drive does not offer twice the failure rate. It's almost
>> > certain
>> > that one drive will fail first. However the MTBF is probably close to 3
>> > years, and having a single drive will prob fail just about at the same
>> > MTBF
>> > time. So it does not double the failure possible in a raid -0 config.
>> > If
>> > fact
>> > if the home user can manage it, Raid-0 is a significant performance
>> > boost
>> > over a single drive config. Double you space with raid -0 and run and
>> > external usb 2 drive to ghost and image, as it should be. :)[/color]
>>
>> Read my other reply to you, and then hopefully you will not continue to
>> agree with one of the biggest retards in the newsgroup.
>>
>> ss.
>>
>>
>>[/color][/color]

"blaster500" <blaster500.35zf93@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:blaster500.35zf93@no-mx.forums.net...[color=blue]
>
> What!? RAID 0 is great for a home computer and you will not lose any HD
> space. It will stripe your two hd's together so they will appear as one
> large drive. Data access time can be increased by nearly x2 is certain
> situations since the data is spread out onto two drives. The limiting
> factor in most PC setups are the hard drive speed, so having two hard
> drives working at the same time to retrieve data helps significantly.[/color]



only problem is that if one drive goes belly up all your data is lost


By all means go RAID but just make extra sure your data is backed up
regularly

Dattron wrote:
[color=blue]
> Corrections to spelling errors sorry....
>
> It's not twice the chance of loosing data, it's the same chance. Two (new)
> identical drives in raid-0 will be rated for the same run time before
> failure. This is referred to as MTBF = Mean Time Before Failure. All
> Electronic equipment should have this rating in some form in thousands of
> hours. Of course if you pair a 5 year old drive with a new drive your up
> time will
> probably be significantly hindered. lol
>[/color]
You actually believe that marketing hype? MTBF indeed. Seagate releases a
new drive today and says its MTBF is 3 years. They've run it for 3 years
before releasing? I've seen brand new hard drives fail at first use. I've
seen them fail in a week and I've seen them run for 5 years and still work.
That has absolutely nothing to do in regards to striping 2 drives in a
RAID0 setup, where one is twice as likely to lose data simply because the
failure of one of those drives will do that - lose all your data.

Cheers.
[color=blue]
>
> "Dattron" wrote:
>[color=green]
>> It's not twice the chance of loosing data, it's the same chance. Two
>> (new) identical drives in raid-0 will be rated for the same run time
>> before failure. This is refered toi as MBTF = Mean Time Before Failure.
>> All Electronic equiptment should have this rating if some form in
>> thoundsands of hours. Of course if you pair a 5 year old drive with a new
>> drive your will probably be significantly hindered. lol
>>
>> "Bob Campbell" wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > "forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote in message
>> > news:ubZ2xwYgIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> > >> Remember that if one drive fails in RAID-0, you lose everything, so
>> > >> you
>> > >> have to back-up any data, or keep them on another drive. There is
>> > >> twice the chance of losing your data.
>> > >>
>> > >> Intel Matrix RAID allows you to make a RAID-1 partition on the same
>> > >> pair of disks, so if one fails, data stored on the RAID-1 partition
>> > >> is still (quite) safe.
>> > >>
>> > >> ss.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > How is there twice the chance of a failing HD ?
>> > > If you own two homes...is there twice the chance of them catching
>> > > fire ?
>> >
>> >
>> > He didn't say "twice the chance of a failing HD", he said twice the
>> > chance
>> > of losing your data. Which is true with RAID0, since you have more
>> > failure points.
>> >
>> > Yes, if you have 2 houses, your chances of a house you own catching
>> > fire has
>> > gone up. Maybe not double, but certainly higher. Consider if you
>> > owned
>> > every house in the US. Your odds are now 100% that a house you own
>> > will catch fire.
>> >
>> > > Idiots shouldn't rely on simplistic statistics
>> >
>> > Indeed.
>> >
>> >[/color][/color][/color]

--
What does Bill Gates use?
[url]http://tinyurl.com/2zxhdl[/url]

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

AlexB's abacus: [url]http://www.poppystoys.co.uk/shop/baby-toys/caterpillar.jpg[/url]
The closest to "computing" that man should go.

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
[url]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm[/url]

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:48:00 -0800, Seidell23231
<Seidell23231@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> OK, final questions. I now have the 2 drives, in RAID 0.[/color]


OK. As I said below, I think it's a poor choice, but it's your choice,
not mine.

[color=blue]
> Is it wise to
> establish partitions? If yes, do I put the same partition on both drives, or
> will it be automatically done? Do I ever use the 2nd drive?[/color]


You have a RAID 0 array. The two drives are striped together and seen
as a single physical drive in Windows. There effectively is no second
drive, so you have no option to put partitions on it. Instead of two
350GB drives, you now have one 700GB drive.

Regarding partitioning, the fact that it's RAID 0 is irrelevant. The
rationale for how you should partition that 700GB drive is exactly the
same whether it's one physical 700GB drive or two 350GBs in a RAID 0
array. You can read my thoughts on partitioning in this article I
wrote recently: [url]http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326[/url]

[color=blue]
> "Seidell23231" wrote:
>[color=green]
> > found out why only 1 drive is showing under RAID 0. Per the instructions,
> > after migrating a system from RAID Ready to RAID 0, the RAID volume contains
> > the combined capacity of all the hard drives, but the migrated partition
> > leaves unformatted space at the end of the RAID volume. Also explains the
> > fix.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Seidell23231" wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Ther following is a print out on my RAID. Notice, 2 drives = 670. RAID 0 in
> > > place, My computer reports 1 HD @ 320GB.
> > >
> > > Thoughts
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Intel(R) RAID Technology
> > >
> > > Intel RAID Controller: Intel(R) ICH8R/ICH9R SATA RAID Controller
> > > Number of Serial ATA ports: 6
> > >
> > > RAID Option ROM Version: 7.5.0.1017
> > > Driver Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > > RAID Plug-In Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Language Resource Version of the RAID Plug-In: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Create Volume Wizard Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Language Resource Version of the Create Volume Wizard: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Create Volume from Existing Hard Drive Wizard Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Language Resource Version of the Create Volume from Existing Hard Drive
> > > Wizard: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Modify Volume Wizard Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Language Resource Version of the Modify Volume Wizard: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Delete Volume Wizard Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Language Resource Version of the Delete Volume Wizard: 7.6.0.1011
> > > ISDI Library Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Event Monitor User Notification Tool Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > > Language Resource Version of the Event Monitor User Notification Tool:
> > > 7.6.0.1011
> > > Event Monitor Version: 7.6.0.1011
> > >
> > > Array_0000
> > > Status: No active migration(s)
> > > Hard Drive Write Cache Enabled: Yes
> > > Size: 670.7 GB
> > > Free Space: 0 GB
> > > Number of Hard Drives: 2
> > > Hard Drive Member 1: ST3360320AS
> > > Hard Drive Member 2: ST3360320AS
> > > Number of Volumes: 1
> > > Volume Member 1: Volume_0000
> > >
> > > Volume_0000
> > > Status: Normal
> > > System Volume: Yes
> > > Volume Write-Back Cache Enabled: No
> > > RAID Level: RAID 0 (striping)
> > > Strip Size: 128 KB
> > > Size: 670.6 GB
> > > Physical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> > > Logical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> > > Number of Hard Drives: 2
> > > Hard Drive Member 1: ST3360320AS
> > > Hard Drive Member 2: ST3360320AS
> > > Parent Array: Array_0000
> > >
> > > Hard Drive 0
> > > Usage: Array member
> > > Status: Normal
> > > Device Port: 0
> > > Device Port Location: Internal
> > > Current Serial ATA Transfer Mode: Generation 2
> > > Model: ST3360320AS
> > > Serial Number: 6QF3BSYL
> > > Firmware: 3.CHN
> > > Native Command Queuing Support: Yes
> > > Hard Drive Write Cache Enabled: Yes
> > > Size: 335.3 GB
> > > Physical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> > > Logical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> > > Number of Volumes: 1
> > > Volume Member 1: Volume_0000
> > > Parent Array: Array_0000
> > >
> > > Hard Drive 1
> > > Usage: Array member
> > > Status: Normal
> > > Device Port: 2
> > > Device Port Location: Internal
> > > Current Serial ATA Transfer Mode: Generation 2
> > > Model: ST3360320AS
> > > Serial Number: 6QF3BZBS
> > > Firmware: 3.CHN
> > > Native Command Queuing Support: Yes
> > > Hard Drive Write Cache Enabled: Yes
> > > Size: 335.3 GB
> > > Physical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> > > Logical Sector Size: 512 Bytes
> > > Number of Volumes: 1
> > > Volume Member 1: Volume_0000
> > > Parent Array: Array_0000
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 17:15:01 -0800, Seidell23231
> > > > <Seidell23231@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey ALL,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have an option I have never used before on my new PC. I have heard about
> > > > > the RAID 0 and 1 in the past, but never paid much attention since it did not
> > > > > apply. So now the opportunity is presenting itself and I would like some
> > > > > help. In essence, is it a worth while venture or not? My HD are 350GB @
> > > > > 7800, and as I understand it, if I use the RAID, I will loose one of the HD's
> > > > > in the overall scheme. So instead of 700GB, I will have 335GB. So please
> > > > > help help out and give your advice. I use the system for home. I use Office
> > > > > 2007 , but also play a lot of RPG Games, like Oblivion and NeverWinter
> > > > > Nights. First persons shooters are COD 2 & 4. So I await your input! Gunny
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > RAID0 and RAID1 are two completely different things.
> > > >
> > > > RAID0 is striping. It alternates pieces of a file on multiple drives
> > > > to improve performance. It sounds great, but in practice, the
> > > > performance increase is very small, but the risk to your data is
> > > > greatly increased. Because every file is spread across every drive, if
> > > > any drive dies, *all* your data dies with it.
> > > >
> > > > I no longer use RAID0 on this computer, but I used to. Since getting
> > > > rid of it, I am able to discern no loss of performance.
> > > >
> > > > RAID1 is mirroring. When you use RAID1, every file is written to each
> > > > drive on the RAID array. So, yes, with a two-drive RAID1 array, the
> > > > result is that you have half of the amount of storage you thought you
> > > > had.
> > > >
> > > > Although some people think of RAID1 as a backup technique, that's
> > > > *not* what it is. RAID 1 uses two or more drives, each a duplicate of
> > > > the others, to provide redundancy, not backup. It's used in situations
> > > > (almost always within corporations, not in homes) where any downtime
> > > > can't be tolerated, because the way it works is that if one drive
> > > > fails the other takes over seamlessly.
> > > >
> > > > Most companies that use RAID 1 also have a strong external backup plan
> > > > in place.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I'm concerned, neither RAID01 nor RAID2 is appropriate for
> > > > home users.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > > > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
> > > >[/color][/color][/color]

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Nice article. I couldn't agree more with your thoughts on partitioning. With
modern hardware and OS' organising your folders is a better way to setup a
system than partitions.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
[url]http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/[/url]


"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:m708t3pfj28cfmlpu6uv0tr1540jrl8rst@4ax.com...[color=blue]
>You can read my thoughts on partitioning in this article I
> wrote recently: [url]http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326[/url]
>[/color]

"will_s" <wlsutton******.com> wrote in message
news:%23dFopWcgIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
> "blaster500" <blaster500.35zf93@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
> news:blaster500.35zf93@no-mx.forums.net...[color=green]
> >
> > What!? RAID 0 is great for a home computer and you will not lose any HD
> > space. It will stripe your two hd's together so they will appear as one
> > large drive. Data access time can be increased by nearly x2 is certain
> > situations since the data is spread out onto two drives. The limiting
> > factor in most PC setups are the hard drive speed, so having two hard
> > drives working at the same time to retrieve data helps significantly.[/color]
>
>
>
> only problem is that if one drive goes belly up all your data is lost
>
>
> By all means go RAID but just make extra sure your data is backed up
> regularly
>[/color]


That's the problem.
Most folks never properly backup their data.

I do a lot of data recovery for folks and though of course a HD can fail
without warning...
there usually are a few warning signs...
such as read/write errors.

For the people who have gotten their machines to me...
I have usually been able to retrieve most of their data.
It can be difficult and time consuming...but a fair amount of time...it's
possible.

Having data stripped between two drives on a RAID 0 would probably be a
nightmare.

The technology on hardrives is pretty much rapped up. In a network command
center that hosts many servers using Maxtor, Seagate , and IBM hardrives. The
up time is fairly good where you start to see errors around the five year
point. Around the four and five year point I personally would start to work
on a plan to start down grading servers, motherboard and hardrives to a less
critical area. So yes, I have seen that the MTBF is a good referance point
number to start planning change, plus or minus a year. And yes you are
correct there is a risk of pulling a bad drive, and relpace it through the
manufacture quick.

"NoStop" wrote:
[color=blue]
> Dattron wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Corrections to spelling errors sorry....
> >
> > It's not twice the chance of loosing data, it's the same chance. Two (new)
> > identical drives in raid-0 will be rated for the same run time before
> > failure. This is referred to as MTBF = Mean Time Before Failure. All
> > Electronic equipment should have this rating in some form in thousands of
> > hours. Of course if you pair a 5 year old drive with a new drive your up
> > time will
> > probably be significantly hindered. lol
> >[/color]
> You actually believe that marketing hype? MTBF indeed. Seagate releases a
> new drive today and says its MTBF is 3 years. They've run it for 3 years
> before releasing? I've seen brand new hard drives fail at first use. I've
> seen them fail in a week and I've seen them run for 5 years and still work.
> That has absolutely nothing to do in regards to striping 2 drives in a
> RAID0 setup, where one is twice as likely to lose data simply because the
> failure of one of those drives will do that - lose all your data.
>
> Cheers.
>[color=green]
> >
> > "Dattron" wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> It's not twice the chance of loosing data, it's the same chance. Two
> >> (new) identical drives in raid-0 will be rated for the same run time
> >> before failure. This is refered toi as MBTF = Mean Time Before Failure.
> >> All Electronic equiptment should have this rating if some form in
> >> thoundsands of hours. Of course if you pair a 5 year old drive with a new
> >> drive your will probably be significantly hindered. lol
> >>
> >> "Bob Campbell" wrote:
> >>
> >> > "forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote in message
> >> > news:ubZ2xwYgIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >> > >> Remember that if one drive fails in RAID-0, you lose everything, so
> >> > >> you
> >> > >> have to back-up any data, or keep them on another drive. There is
> >> > >> twice the chance of losing your data.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Intel Matrix RAID allows you to make a RAID-1 partition on the same
> >> > >> pair of disks, so if one fails, data stored on the RAID-1 partition
> >> > >> is still (quite) safe.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ss.
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > How is there twice the chance of a failing HD ?
> >> > > If you own two homes...is there twice the chance of them catching
> >> > > fire ?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > He didn't say "twice the chance of a failing HD", he said twice the
> >> > chance
> >> > of losing your data. Which is true with RAID0, since you have more
> >> > failure points.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, if you have 2 houses, your chances of a house you own catching
> >> > fire has
> >> > gone up. Maybe not double, but certainly higher. Consider if you
> >> > owned
> >> > every house in the US. Your odds are now 100% that a house you own
> >> > will catch fire.
> >> >
> >> > > Idiots shouldn't rely on simplistic statistics
> >> >
> >> > Indeed.
> >> >
> >> >[/color][/color]
>
> --
> What does Bill Gates use?
> [url]http://tinyurl.com/2zxhdl[/url]
>
> Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.
>
> AlexB's abacus: [url]http://www.poppystoys.co.uk/shop/baby-toys/caterpillar.jpg[/url]
> The closest to "computing" that man should go.
>
> Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
> [url]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm[/url]
>
>[/color]

...... no stop, it's all liguid anyway, who's going to care in a 100 years
anyways :)

"Dattron" wrote:
[color=blue]
> The technology on hardrives is pretty much rapped up. In a network command
> center that hosts many servers using Maxtor, Seagate , and IBM hardrives. The
> up time is fairly good where you start to see errors around the five year
> point. Around the four and five year point I personally would start to work
> on a plan to start down grading servers, motherboard and hardrives to a less
> critical area. So yes, I have seen that the MTBF is a good referance point
> number to start planning change, plus or minus a year. And yes you are
> correct there is a risk of pulling a bad drive, and relpace it through the
> manufacture quick.
>
> "NoStop" wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Dattron wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Corrections to spelling errors sorry....
> > >
> > > It's not twice the chance of loosing data, it's the same chance. Two (new)
> > > identical drives in raid-0 will be rated for the same run time before
> > > failure. This is referred to as MTBF = Mean Time Before Failure. All
> > > Electronic equipment should have this rating in some form in thousands of
> > > hours. Of course if you pair a 5 year old drive with a new drive your up
> > > time will
> > > probably be significantly hindered. lol
> > >[/color]
> > You actually believe that marketing hype? MTBF indeed. Seagate releases a
> > new drive today and says its MTBF is 3 years. They've run it for 3 years
> > before releasing? I've seen brand new hard drives fail at first use. I've
> > seen them fail in a week and I've seen them run for 5 years and still work.
> > That has absolutely nothing to do in regards to striping 2 drives in a
> > RAID0 setup, where one is twice as likely to lose data simply because the
> > failure of one of those drives will do that - lose all your data.
> >
> > Cheers.
> >[color=darkred]
> > >
> > > "Dattron" wrote:
> > >
> > >> It's not twice the chance of loosing data, it's the same chance. Two
> > >> (new) identical drives in raid-0 will be rated for the same run time
> > >> before failure. This is refered toi as MBTF = Mean Time Before Failure.
> > >> All Electronic equiptment should have this rating if some form in
> > >> thoundsands of hours. Of course if you pair a 5 year old drive with a new
> > >> drive your will probably be significantly hindered. lol
> > >>
> > >> "Bob Campbell" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > "forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote in message
> > >> > news:ubZ2xwYgIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > >> > >> Remember that if one drive fails in RAID-0, you lose everything, so
> > >> > >> you
> > >> > >> have to back-up any data, or keep them on another drive. There is
> > >> > >> twice the chance of losing your data.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Intel Matrix RAID allows you to make a RAID-1 partition on the same
> > >> > >> pair of disks, so if one fails, data stored on the RAID-1 partition
> > >> > >> is still (quite) safe.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> ss.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > How is there twice the chance of a failing HD ?
> > >> > > If you own two homes...is there twice the chance of them catching
> > >> > > fire ?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > He didn't say "twice the chance of a failing HD", he said twice the
> > >> > chance
> > >> > of losing your data. Which is true with RAID0, since you have more
> > >> > failure points.
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes, if you have 2 houses, your chances of a house you own catching
> > >> > fire has
> > >> > gone up. Maybe not double, but certainly higher. Consider if you
> > >> > owned
> > >> > every house in the US. Your odds are now 100% that a house you own
> > >> > will catch fire.
> > >> >
> > >> > > Idiots shouldn't rely on simplistic statistics
> > >> >
> > >> > Indeed.
> > >> >
> > >> >[/color]
> >
> > --
> > What does Bill Gates use?
> > [url]http://tinyurl.com/2zxhdl[/url]
> >
> > Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.
> >
> > AlexB's abacus: [url]http://www.poppystoys.co.uk/shop/baby-toys/caterpillar.jpg[/url]
> > The closest to "computing" that man should go.
> >
> > Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
> > [url]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm[/url]
> >
> >[/color][/color]

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 08:47:56 -0700, "Kerry Brown"
<kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Nice article. I couldn't agree more with your thoughts on partitioning. With
> modern hardware and OS' organising your folders is a better way to setup a
> system than partitions.[/color]


Thanks very much, Kerry.

[color=blue]
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:m708t3pfj28cfmlpu6uv0tr1540jrl8rst@4ax.com...[color=green]
> >You can read my thoughts on partitioning in this article I
> > wrote recently: [url]http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326[/url]
> >[/color][/color]

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup