- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- September 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
The Great Raid Debate Part IPublished on October 23, 2012 · Filed under: Podcast;
7 Responses to “TV-2012-10-23 #089”
Joe said on October 24th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
I had an epiphany of thought one time when I was carrying my Seagate BlackArmor NAS to a new location. What if I dropped it right now by accident on the cement floor? It could destroy two or more drives at once!
So the easiest explanation that covers all RAID configurations and anything else is the theft or natural disaster affecting more than one drive at the same time. All other arguments for or against backing up, preferably off-site, become moot at that point.
Richard said on October 25th, 2012 at 12:06 am
Good for you Mike. Carey often makes good points but he talks over you
far too much. You try to state a point or story and he interrupts and won’t allow you to finish. Both hosts have good things to say and both should be given equal opportunity to speak their minds.
Jofred said on October 27th, 2012 at 3:09 am
I have had a lot of respect for Mike over the years. And I completely agrees on what he says about servers. But for workstations? All he needed to do was to take a long breath of air, and listen to what Carey tryed to tell him!
I agree that raid 0 is only for special purposes, when you need to speed up a disk, and data is completely insignificant, and very easy to rebuild. It will doubble the risk of a fatal disk crash.
Raid 0 for a home user that has a raid controller on tha motherboard is a great idea. The cost of the extra disk is very small compared to the cost of restoring a system after a system failure. If the user totaly neglects any kind of warning from the tech setting it up, and the machine for the time after the first drive fails, until the second drive fails, So what. Nothing could have saved this customer! You would NEVER make this costomer sign ut to do propper bacups anyway. But the chance that it actually saved the customer until the computer was scrapped is significant.
Raid 5. Why not? Performance hit after failure? Great!!! That should make the customer call while it is easy to replace the drive and fix the issue!! With one drive, everything is lost. And the performance during restore for 24 hours during restore for a home user? So What?? They will leave the power on, go to work, do something else the next afternoon, go to sleep, and after work the next day everything is fixed. The alternative is that they need help from a tech that afternoon, making it impossible for them to do much else (not to mention the cost).
So what is this agression against raid 5 on a home computer? No- it does not replace backups. It never will. But selling th PC you should say that backup is important, but that you have provided a more resiliant computer. It will still fail, and if it gives errormessages, it has to be fixed, or all will be lost. But usually, it will reduce the cost of fixing a failure very much. That is the benefit for the user.
Thanks for the comments. As for me ‘talking over Mike,’ let me say that I have the utmost respect for Mike. We have an exchange of ideas and those ideas often spur reactions from each of us. Just as Mike will interrupt me, I will interrupt him. It’s how we communicate with each other. Neither Mike nor myself had any ill-will towards one-another about not being able to get a word in. We were both wanting to make our points before taking the conversation the next disagreement, and completely forgetting about the point we wanted to make earlier if we did not interrupt. There is no reason the listener should feel one person was trying to ‘over talk’ the other, since we don’t do that kind of podcast. We are both passionate and have strong feelings, but our friendship is first and foremost. It is up to you, the listener, to hear both sides and decide for yourself which approach you prefer. Our podcast is not a contest to win popularity with our listeners. We are not asking our listeners to decide who they like better. If that’s what you are taking from this, then you’re missing the benefit of the information we provide entirely. That said, I’m glad we found a topic that has got you guys responding and leaving comments! I love to see comments and to hear from our listeners! Please keep them coming!
Richard said on October 31st, 2012 at 9:07 am
Carey, I am not taking sides nor is it my fault I am hearing over talk. Like you said, both of you present options for the listener to decide. However, I’d like to hear some of these options, thoughts, etc. to the end. It gets a little difficult to understand both people when they are both saying things at the same time. Mike may interrupt as well, but he stops speaking when he sees that you have more to say or have not completed your thought. When you interrupt, you do not slow down and continue right on even after verbal requests to let him finish his thought. I am not saying this is all from some ill will, I wouldn’t know. I have no idea why you took your post down friendship, popularity contest, and me missing information. I am just saying it’d be easier listening if there were less interruptions so I can get “the benefit of the information”, as you stated. But of course, that’s just my opinion and I am only one person.
Barry said on October 31st, 2012 at 4:46 pm
I read the comments here before listening to the episode and was expecting some sort of big row. It would be a pretty dull show if these guys agreed on everything. Haven’t recently returned from holiday whilst in the company of someone with poor social skills, I didn’t think Carey’s interruptions were obnoxious. Noticeable at times, but not they seemed pretty natural given how the conversation was unfolding.
Barry said on November 14th, 2012 at 6:06 pm
With apologies for the awful typos above, folks.