Re: Raid and SBS 2003
From: root (root_at_buchanangc.com)
Date: 02/19/04
- Next message: Wil Campbell [MSFT]: "Re: Intranet http://companyweb"
- Previous message: root: "Re: Raid and SBS 2003"
- In reply to: John LeMay: "Re: Raid and SBS 2003"
- Next in thread: Adam Selene: "Re: Raid and SBS 2003"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:40:19 -0800
"John LeMay" <jlemay@njmc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a9de2eb2c498ce989722@news.individual.net...
> 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?
HUH? Your original posts talked of RAID 0+1/10 vs. RAID 5. Suddenly you
switched to RAID 1 vs RAID 5 which is a meaningless comparison without more
details.
> I was starting to think I was completely off base here, but now I'm
> thinking very much otherwise.
Rethink again.
- Next message: Wil Campbell [MSFT]: "Re: Intranet http://companyweb"
- Previous message: root: "Re: Raid and SBS 2003"
- In reply to: John LeMay: "Re: Raid and SBS 2003"
- Next in thread: Adam Selene: "Re: Raid and SBS 2003"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
