So I wonder how well something like this would work for "regular use" before one starts getting write errors:
It says it does RAID 0...stick 10 64 gig cards in there?
64 gig cards can be had pretty cheap, I guess I could test it to destruction...-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Den mandag den 4. januar 2016 kl. 22.30.16 UTC+1 skrev bitrex:
will depends on the cards, some have wear leveling some don't
-Lasse
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 16:29:52 -0500 (EST), bitrex Gave us:
RAID is made so that nothing "craps out" dufus. It can handle up to two failed "drive" segments and still "give" all of the data. The two replacements get brought back in and updated and then it is fault tolerant all over again. You should research failure rates on modern microSD chips before you go actually "trying" to get it to fail.
The SATA is actually the slow part of it. He should have made it for a PCIe (4x) interface. Much faster and closer to the CPU and memory.
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 16:29:52 -0500 (EST), bitrex Gave us:
Same price from Amazon, and no overtly large link either.
Depends what you want to do. These days a decent fast SSD or RAID pair of them will pretty much saturate the available IO bandwidth of SATA3.
I suspect in regular use provided you don't put the swap file on it it will be fine. If like me you want write once read many small lookups then solid state disks are a tremendous improvement over spinning rust.
RAID0 is striped for speed and zero fault tolerance you clueless muppet!
Everything in an array of N has to work perfectly or you lose 1/N th of your data splashed across every file.
It probably isn't worth the effort as RAID0 array of matched SSDs will ace it and are designed with wear levelling. I suspect at about 4 drives the SATA to memory transfer bandwidth will become the limiting factor for performance. I find an SSD plenty fast enough as a scratch.
No harm in trying it if you think it will do what you want more cost effectively but I suspect you may be disappointed.
-- Regards, Martin Brown
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 08:28:02 +0000, Martin Brown Gave us:
Show me where I said RAID 0 ever, you retarded f*ck!
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 08:28:02 +0000, Martin Brown Gave us:
M.2 is the standard for blazing speed, and they are right on the PCI bus. SATA is tertiary to the PCI bus, dipshit.
So a device with is on the PCI interface will be faster than even SATA III.
So you go with "plenty fast enough". Some folks reading a full bore
38GB movie file do not want glitches in their playback or to have to downscale the file to watch it. There is always going to be folks making fast arrays.And the server realm in particular wants it faster than your "plenty fast enough". That is why there are SAS arrays in the channel.
But you have always been about a decade behind. Are you not the one who spent years NOT going on the web for some fear you instilled in yourself?
You think. Guess what aspect of that doesn't matter to the industry.
You said raid took care of errors. You did not say which version of raid. So you did not exclude raid0. So looks like you are the retarded one.
Dan
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 19:40:18 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@krl.org" Gave us:
Right.. So it goes without saying that I was referring to those levels of RAID which do, putz!
No shit, Dip Tracy!
I did not need to, unless you are a retard like mike.
Your eyes deceive you. If you look closer you will find that you are gazing into a mirror.
Moreover the OP specifically *stated* it was in a RAID0 configuration.
(something the resident halfwit conveniently snipped in his reply)
-- Regards, Martin Brown
So what high school did you graduate from?
Dan
Fault tolerant RAID configurations seem like theyre fairly useless for consumer applications - if one is keeping anything important on a RAID disk at home it should be being imaged to a separate drive and cloud storage regularly anyway...
-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:07:15 -0500 (EST), bitrex Gave us:
The benefit of those same systems is faster operation as well. Of course hard, full backups should be done on any system. The fault tolerance means that if one did NOT perform a recent backup, the data will not be lost.
Your entire contention is pointless.
Oh and FUCK the cloud.
Not so. RAID is a great way to make and manage backup disks, which can then be stored off-site, if so desired.
I guess the question is also one of cost: does it make sense to
-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
I
Oops. I guess the question is also one of cost, all things being equal for the same amount of storage you need to pay out double in RAID1. Instead of buying the second HD you could pay for a year of off site cloud backup storage, and one should really have both.
-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:06:45 -0500 (EST), bitrex Gave us:
You said "separate drive" and now you bitch about the cost of what krw was referring to as a RAID 2 mirrored drive method. You ain't real bright.
Oh and drives are cheap now.
Sheesh.
On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 16:25:43 -0500, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno Gave us:
I meant RAID 1 there.
Disk drives are (next to) free. They don't have to be perfectly matched, either.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.