Re: Performance Question: RAID or Individual drives ?

From: MotoX <rat_at_tat.a-tat.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 07:57:15 +0100
Message-ID: <900917752.14750.0.nnrp-01.c2de712e@news.demon.co.uk>

You misread the sentence: better fault-tolerance than NO RAID, and lower cost than RAID0+1.

That's why you shouldn't chop sentences out of the context and original mail containing them...

MotoX.

OraSaurus wrote in message ...
>In article <35ABD0FB.D5B42AE5_at_toneline.demon.co.uk>, Steve Phelan
<stevep_at_toneline.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Yep, many of my clients will happily accept the performance hit of RAID5
for
>> the better fault-tolerance and lower cost, over, say, RAID0+1.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Steve Phelan (MotoX).
>
>Eh? Lower cost - yes. Better fault-tolerance? No way!
Received on Mon Jul 20 1998 - 01:57:15 CDT