Re: Raid and SBS 2003
From: John LeMay (jlemay_at_njmc.com)
Date: 02/19/04
- Next message: JOE: "shared folder containing folders"
- Previous message: Kevin Friend: "Re: The plot thickens..... (Desperatly...mail)"
- In reply to: root: "Re: Raid and SBS 2003"
- Next in thread: root: "Re: Raid and SBS 2003"
- Reply: root: "Re: Raid and SBS 2003"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:01:07 -0500
In article <#B0NiKo9DHA.1804@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, root@buchanangc.com
says...
> > Bottom line, RAID 5 is not necessarily faster than RAID 1.
>
> RAID 1 is two drives. RAID 5 is three or more so your assertion is
> meaningless.
>
What??? The whole point of this thread has been the speed of various
RAID options. How on earth does the fact that RAID 5 requires three
drives over RAID 1's two drives (duh) have any effect on my statement
that RAID 5 is not necessarily faster than RAID 1?
I was starting to think I was completely off base here, but now I'm
thinking very much otherwise.
-- John LeMay kc2kth Senior Technical Manager NJMC | http://www.njmc.com | Phone 732-557-4848
- Next message: JOE: "shared folder containing folders"
- Previous message: Kevin Friend: "Re: The plot thickens..... (Desperatly...mail)"
- In reply to: root: "Re: Raid and SBS 2003"
- Next in thread: root: "Re: Raid and SBS 2003"
- Reply: root: "Re: Raid and SBS 2003"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|