"Mid-range systems" is not referring to personal computers. "8-inch drives" is another clue.
emptiestplace
joined 1 year ago
I think you might be off by a few years at least, a 40MB drive in 1982 would've been incredibly uncommon.
From the technical sense it doesn't have to have 4 drives
Please explain how you think you can distribute two sets of parity data across a three drive array?
You can't have a three drive RAID 6 array.
Please just stop.
You are not ready to be lecturing on this topic.
Bits of what you wrote are reasonable, but your premise is incorrect.
Consider a scenario with a degraded RAID 1 array comprised of two 1.6 TB disks capable of transferring data at a sustained rate of 6 Gbps: you should be able to recover from a single disk failure in just over half an hour.
Repeat the same scenario with 32 TB members, now we're looking at a twelve hour recovery - twelve hours of intensive activity that could push either of your drives over the edge. Increasing data density actually increases the risk of data loss.
Finally, we say you shouldn't think of RAID as a backup because the entire array could fail, not for the excruciatingly literal reasons you are attempting to convey. If you lose half of a two disk mirror set, you haven't lost any data.
sometimes my brain's just a can opener
wtf, one would be fine
It could be the same.
I'd love to read a book about the organizational struggles they've faced over the years, but I guess that would just be political history... :(
I think I might've had a hard time not judging him for sharing that in an interview. Good on you for not.
SSD RAID is actually very common outside of home use! And yeah, clustered filesystems help overcome many of these limitations, but tend to be extremely demanding (expensive hardware for comparable performance). Network almost immediately becomes the bottleneck. Even forgetting about latency and other network efficiency concerns, 100 Gbps isn't that fast when you have individual devices approaching 16 Gbps.