[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Friday 08 May 2009 11:42, Kai Hendry wrote: > I don't think Google use RAID on their high availability configurations. > > Anyone who has listened to http://blog.stackoverflow.com/ or like me has > had some PAINFUL experiences with RAID, can't help feel cynical towards > RAID. I remember the joy of trying to repair a raid setup on an MS w2k server and discovering the data on the two disks was identical - it was the MS raid software that killed it! Its a few years since I was involved in any system management but cant remember any setups where a drive died and the RAID5 stayed up and working or the spare RAID1 drive wasn't corrupted as well. Raid0 is nice for speeding up disk access though you may be better considering a mobo with 16/64G ram on it - I used to have a 486 with 1g ram on it running mysql that I could convince people was the latest and greatest cos I could tweak all the tables into ram and it just crushed any pc with 512M ram that had to read a disk. When it comes to redundancy/uptime there are many other more holistic ways of achieving it - clustering/clouds etc. Tom te tom te tom -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html