-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/07/06 16:27, Mike McCarty wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: >> >> RAID is *not* for archives!!! > > RAID was not designed for archives. I can see no reason why > it wouldn't work for that. RAID 1, for example, is simply > making two (or more) copies of the data. Are you saying that > making more than one copy of a backup is not a reasonable > approach? > [snip] > The main advantages would be that one would essentially > have burst error correction of the size of the disc > (this being, with the FEC on the disc, if any, an > interleaved code in effect), which is enormous, indeed, > and economy in storage over using multiple copies, as > illustrated above.
I'd only trust "RAID archiving" if the controller and a rescue CD were also stored in the "archive location" along with the hard drives. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Is "common sense" really valid? For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins are mud people. However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFeJdSS9HxQb37XmcRAtUjAJ9no82jGDDJp3PX7NlfAYeUlcuedACg0upz Zc67aQ3B9Y7ChPhRaKb6yWE= =Q02T -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
