10 5 Raid Raid Vs
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
 
 Advanced search
MATCHING GROUPS



more...
POPULAR GROUPS

more...
found 1482 articles for 1.848 sec
Why are you multiplying C (capacity) by (N-1) (Number of disks in array - 1) by .75 (some number drawn out of a hat)? Look through my posts. Answer the specific questions. "Eric" <Eric@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:FE054569-C9C5-49FE-9E31-E972FBACD709@microsoft.com... >5 slot each slot with HD , right now the size is 202g(around) ,each HD can > use 67G so 67 x4 x0.75     

Group: microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs · Group Profile · Search for 10 5 Raid Raid Vs in microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs
Author: SuperGumby [SBS MVP]
Date: Feb 19, 2008 20:42

5 slot each slot with HD , right now the size is 202g(around) ,each HD can use 67G so 67 x4 x0.75 =201g, the size is right for 4 HD, but I remember before it was around 280G, so it's confusing me. --Eric "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" wrote: sorry, most of those N's should be C's (Capacity). "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@your.nellie> wrote in message news:OUcHNM3cIHA.288@TK2MSFTNGP02
Show full article (5.27Kb) · Show article thread
sorry, most of those N's should be C's (Capacity). "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@your.nellie> wrote in message news:OUcHNM3cIHA.288@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > OK, so where is your 5th HDD? > Do you have a 5th HDD? (open the box, look) > > Some of the comments have been specifically caused by 'Disk space 73G x5 > x75%% must be 273GB, now only 202 left, why?', indicating you think the > system     

Group: microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs · Group Profile · Search for 10 5 Raid Raid Vs in microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs
Author: Eric
Date: Feb 19, 2008 20:30

OK, so where is your 5th HDD? Do you have a 5th HDD? (open the box, look) Some of the comments have been specifically caused by 'Disk space 73G x5 x75%% must be 273GB, now only 202 left, why?', indicating you think the system has 5 HDD's, but making a mistake in calculation. The general equation for RAID 5 capacity is (N-1). The Number of drives - 1 used for parity (parity is actually
Show full article (4.72Kb) · Show article thread
1927: TOSHIO MASUDA, who directed "The Last Days of Planet Earth" and "Tokyo Blackout", is born in Kobe. 1935: HIDEAKI ESUMI, who was in "Kuroneko" and "Tokyo Blackout", is born in Shimane, Japan. 1941: CLARENCE WILSON, who played Mr. Petersen in "Son of Kong", dies in Los Angeles. 1946: TOKUMA NISHIOKA, who played Takehiko Fujio in "Godzilla vs. King Ghidora", is born in Kanagawa, Japan     

Group: microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs · Group Profile · Search for 10 5 Raid Raid Vs in microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs
Author: SuperGumby [SBS MVP]
Date: Feb 19, 2008 19:52

-----Original Message----- From: Dave Ewart [mailto:davee@ceu.ox.ac.uk] Sent: 30 August 2007 16:55 To: debian-amd64@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Software vs Hardware RAID 10? On Thursday, 30.08.2007 at 10:37 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: [RAID 6] If you write a single block then you have to read the 2 parity blocks for the stripe, update
Show full article (4.23Kb) · Show article thread
On Thursday, 30.08.2007 at 10:37 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > [RAID 6] > > If you write a single block then you have to read the 2 parity blocks > for the stripe, update them and write 3 blocks. So you have 5 times > the traffic on the bus. For anything doing single block writes this is > quite the killer. I would imagine a database like oracle to just die > with software raid6     

Group: microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs · Group Profile · Search for 10 5 Raid Raid Vs in microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs
Author: SuperGumby [SBS MVP]
Date: Feb 19, 2008 19:45

Lennart Sorensen wrote: Linux software raid (at least for raid 0 and 1 and combinations) is often faster than what a hardware raid card can do, and almost certainly better than what any fakeraid pulls off (since their drivers are often crap at doing the raid in software). raid 5 on the other hand can often be done faster by a dedicated xor engine, and since you don't have to do as
Show full article (3.92Kb) · Show article thread
On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 01:15:00PM +0000, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: > If the raid card was PCI-e, would it matter? Certainly better than plain PCI. More bandwidth. > Worst case for the bus would be data to and from the drive's cache. For > SATA-II, that's 300 MB/s. So to write to two drives at once it takes > 600 MB/s. Since each lane of a PCI-e has a raw max rate of 250 MB/s, > each drive     

Group: alt.movies.monster · Group Profile · Search for 10 5 Raid Raid Vs in alt.movies.monster
Author: Reaper G
Date: Oct 5, 2007 06:50

On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 02:01:24AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: Linux software raid (at least for raid 0 and 1 and combinations) is often faster than what a hardware raid card can do, and almost certainly better than what any fakeraid pulls off (since their drivers are often crap at doing the raid in software). raid 5 on the other hand can often be done faster by a dedicated xor
Show full article (2.65Kb)
    

Group: linux.debian.ports.x8664 · Group Profile · Search for 10 5 Raid Raid Vs in linux.debian.ports.x8664
Author: Paul Ryland
Date: Aug 31, 2007 09:40

Show full article (1.48Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: linux.debian.ports.x8664 · Group Profile · Search for 10 5 Raid Raid Vs in linux.debian.ports.x8664
Author: Dave Ewart
Date: Aug 30, 2007 09:00

Show full article (1.13Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: linux.debian.ports.x8664 · Group Profile · Search for 10 5 Raid Raid Vs in linux.debian.ports.x8664
Author: Neil Gunton
Date: Aug 26, 2007 07:50

Show full article (3.12Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: linux.debian.ports.x8664 · Group Profile · Search for 10 5 Raid Raid Vs in linux.debian.ports.x8664
Author: Lennart Sorensen
Date: Aug 26, 2007 07:40

Show full article (1.80Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: linux.debian.ports.x8664 · Group Profile · Search for 10 5 Raid Raid Vs in linux.debian.ports.x8664
Author: Douglas A. Tutty
Date: Aug 26, 2007 06:20

Show full article (1.39Kb) · Show article thread
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · next