Fenix025 wrote:I mean: why Raid1 instead of Raid0.
Because RAID0 doesn't protect against drive failure.
Fenix025 wrote:I mean: why Raid1 instead of Raid0.
loftar wrote:Well, I use LVM to combine the RAID1 volumes rather than md-raid. Whether you want to call that RAID1+0 or not is a matter of definition. They do combine into one filesystem.
loftar wrote:Metruption wrote:loftar wrote:[list]
[*]7 TB RAID1 storage
How big is your porn collection
That makes it fairly obvious how large it is, doesn't it? ^^Fenix025 wrote:Thats 2 of 3.5 or there is so big hds out there? Also: why raid1?
It's (3 + 3 + 1) * 2. It's RAID1 to make it redundant against a disk loss, obviously. That's what RAID1 is for.Grable wrote:Who needs 32GB ram on a personal computer?
More RAM is always good, if only for block-caching.painhertz wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lezcxWzCl2E
I do have to say that video makes me more impressed with Battlefield than with the CPU in question. It's pretty cool how it's able to load-balance between 7 threads while not letting any one of them be a bottleneck. I'm fairly jelly.
Jesus_Smith_Nandez wrote:I still don't see why you would ever want or need more than 4 cores, that's why I went for an Athlon rather than an old FX-series.
Jesus_Smith_Nandez wrote:I still don't see why you would ever want or need more than 4 cores, that's why I went for an Athlon rather than an old FX-series.
RustyBuckitt wrote:I wonder if anyone has a rig worse then this:
Model Name: MacBook Pro 15"
Model Identifier: MacBookPro2,2
Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed: 2.16 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 2
L2 Cache: 4 MB
Memory: 1 GB
Bus Speed: 667 MHz
(Also, All parts are DDR2, and is iOS X v10.5.8)
Users browsing this forum: Claude [Bot], Yandex [Bot] and 4 guests