Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?

From: Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)
Date: Sat Apr 19 2003 - 11:36:02 EST

Next message: John Bradford: "Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?"
In reply to: John Bradford: "Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?"
Next in thread: John Bradford: "Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?"
Reply: John Bradford: "Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 05:22:18PM +0100, John Bradford wrote:
> A RAID-0 array and regular backups are the best way to protect your
> data.

Correction. RAID-0 is the best way to loose your data. If any device
containing any part of the array goes down, you loose at least some of
your data.

RAID-1 is the redundant raid level, where each device in the set
contains a duplicate of the other device(s).

-- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: John Bradford: "Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?"
In reply to: John Bradford: "Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?"
Next in thread: John Bradford: "Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?"
Reply: John Bradford: "Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 22:00:26 EST