Guide to the common implementations of RAID

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Hi guys,

I've written a short guide to the most common levels of RAID in use,
mainly so people new to computers and storage solutions can get to
grips with it. I know I would have found a guide useful a year ago when
I was new to RAID. I know there are many resources out there, but I
tried to make mine more accessible. Please let me know what you think,
and feel free to comment if you have any opinions.

RAIDers of the lost Archives:
http://www.thedaytoday.com/archives/000012.php

Thank you.

Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

dave.hunt@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> I've written a short guide to the most common levels of RAID in use,
> mainly so people new to computers and storage solutions can get to
> grips with it. I know I would have found a guide useful a year ago when
> I was new to RAID. I know there are many resources out there, but I
> tried to make mine more accessible. Please let me know what you think,
> and feel free to comment if you have any opinions.
>
> RAIDers of the lost Archives:
> http://www.thedaytoday.com/archives/000012.php
>
> Thank you.

Your explanation of 2, 3, and 4 is pretty sketchy and doesn't give any notin
why one would want to use one of those levels, and you entirely ignored
RAID 6, which is available both commercially implemented in hardware and as
GPLed software.

> Dave

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Dave]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

My intention was to introduce the most common implementations of RAID
to users without any previous knowledge. As levels 2, 3, and 4 involve
methods broadly described in my guide I didn't feel it necessary to go
in depth. Also, a long guide can be rather off putting for users new to
the subject, which is why I included resource links for anyone desiring
more information.

As for RAID 6, I'm not familiar with it. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Dave]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Thanks for your really useful feedback. I must punish myself endlessly
for that typo... if only 3 and 2 were even further apart from each
other on my keyboard!

</sarcasm>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

dave.hunt@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I've written a short guide to the most common levels of RAID in use,
> mainly so people new to computers and storage solutions can get to
> grips with it. I know I would have found a guide useful a year ago when
> I was new to RAID. I know there are many resources out there, but I
> tried to make mine more accessible. Please let me know what you think,
> and feel free to comment if you have any opinions.
>
> RAIDers of the lost Archives:
> http://www.thedaytoday.com/archives/000012.php
>
> Thank you.
>
> Dave

To quote from your page:

"A minimum of three drives is required for RAID level 0."

Say no more. I suggest you withdraw your site. I didn't bother to read
on.


Odie
--

RetroData
Data Recovery Experts
www.retrodata.co.uk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Odie Ferrous wrote:

> dave.hunt@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I've written a short guide to the most common levels of RAID in use,
>> mainly so people new to computers and storage solutions can get to
>> grips with it. I know I would have found a guide useful a year ago when
>> I was new to RAID. I know there are many resources out there, but I
>> tried to make mine more accessible. Please let me know what you think,
>> and feel free to comment if you have any opinions.
>>
>> RAIDers of the lost Archives:
>> http://www.thedaytoday.com/archives/000012.php
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Dave
>
> To quote from your page:
>
> "A minimum of three drives is required for RAID level 0."
>
> Say no more. I suggest you withdraw your site. I didn't bother to read
> on.

You clearly read it more carefully than I did. I didn't even find it
interesting enough to be worth that level of scrutiny.

> Odie

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> Thanks for your really useful feedback. I must punish myself endlessly
> for that typo... if only 3 and 2 were even further apart from each
> other on my keyboard!

Bringing an obvious and critical mistake to your attention was indeed useful
feedback, even if you are too thin-skinned to realize it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Dave wrote:

> My intention was to introduce the most common implementations of RAID
> to users without any previous knowledge.

The RAID wiki does that already. Not the wikipedia entry, but the RAID
wiki--google that.

> As levels 2, 3, and 4 involve
> methods broadly described in my guide I didn't feel it necessary to go
> in depth.

The devil is in the details. Each has its advantages and its limitations
and its hardware and software requirements. 2 basically doesn't exist. 3
and 4 are different from 5 in ways that have an effect on performance and
complexity of implementation.

> Also, a long guide can be rather off putting for users new to
> the subject, which is why I included resource links for anyone desiring
> more information.

It doesn't have to be "a long guide" to give an idea of why there are
different levels. You give the impression that 2,3,4, and 5 are
interchangeable parts.

> As for RAID 6, I'm not familiar with it. Ignorance is bliss.

Not if you need redundancy even with a failed drive and can't afford one of
the "+1" variants..

>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Dave]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

It was the way in which is was brought to my attention that I
addressed. It was an obvious and critical mistake, and I was also
alerted to it by two other people. Both simply corrected me, none felt
the need to state they didn't bother reading on, or suggest I withdraw
the site - a totally ludicrous suggestion.

Thanks for you input though. I didn't mean to be totally negative to
positive feedback, hence my use of sarcasm.