On Thursday August 09 2007 5:51:22 pm Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > > > What are you going to be doing that makes you think raid 0 is > > > > desirable? For modern home machines with lots of memory, this > > > > probably isn't going to give you much of a speed up in typical use. > > > > It will make the chances of your file system being lost because of a > > > > hardware problem, about double. Raid 1 or 10 seem to be more useful > > > > for home users, than raid 0. > > > > > > No! If the prob of failure during an interval T is pf, the prob of > > > failure for an array of 2 drives during T is 1 - (1-pf)^2. > > For small values of pf 1 - (1-pf)^2 is very close to 2*pf. For small > intervals pf will be small. For those of you discussing failure of hard drives the Google Hard Drive study may be of interest if you haven't read it - some surprising findings, including that smart is not so smart http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf and Steve Gibson's podcast on the results along with those of a study conducted by Carnegie Mellon U -- each study comprised samples of over 100,000 drives -- Claude Jones Brunswick, MD, USA -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
