[thelist] Re: I am looking into the possibility of replacing my

Kevin krr at ix.netcom.com
Sun Aug 19 22:04:48 CDT 2001


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin" <krr at ix.netcom.com>
To: "Kevin" <krr at ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 5:49 PM
Subject: I am looking into the possibility of replacing my


> > Message: 20
> > From: "rick" <rolson at otn.net>
> > To: <thelist at lists.evolt.org>
> > Subject: Re: [thelist] I am looking into the possibility of replacing my
> > Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 15:14:04 -0700
> > charset="iso-8859-1"
> > Reply-To: thelist at lists.evolt.org
> >
> > RAID 0 (striping) has excellent read/write performance.  So, I believe
> this
> > would be ideal for your setup since you're working with big files.  The
> big
> > drawback of striping is that if one drive is lost in your array, then
ALL
> > the data is lost.  With a RAID 0 setup, your chances for a crash are now
> 2x
> > what they were.
> >
> > rick
> >
>
>
> This may be totally off the wall but I was thinking of setting up a RAID 0
> setup
> for a small portion of my hard drives to work more efficiently.
> When the work is finished I was thinking that the best choice for storage
> would be a large 60 - 80 gig hard drive for this data.
>
> I was hoping it would be possible to setup a server to hold my utilites,
> firewall, virus, IIs services, Coldfusion, SQL, and use the administration
> facilities of win2k to automatically transfer selected files to long term
> storage
> "IE: 60 - 80 gig drive", after I have completed the work. This of course
> would
> happen invisibly. As a user I wouldn't need to be aware this was
happening.
>
> If I did  need to rework the files after they have been transfered out of
> the
> RAID 0 area I am thinking that I could create a copy of the same data onto
> the Raid segment of my storage area "for lack of  a better adjective" and
> then once again when all is finished the data would be transfered to the
> archieved
> area for storage.
>
> I hear what your saying about the risks of lossing my data but I am not
sure
> if I have read you correctly. What your saying is that one disk crashes I
> lose all data. O.K. I can live with that.This is my own system in my home
> office, And as such monitoring the health of my drives is done
> automatically.
> At least the new drives promise that health monitoring is part of the
> package.
>
> So the question then would be is there more too that last on crashes than
I
> read
> into it? And also how does the arrangement I have envisioned for my drives
> pan
> out?
>
> Any insight would be appreciated
>
> Thank You
> Kevin
>
>
>





More information about the thelist mailing list