<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: RAID</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.prepressure.com</link>
	<description>Prepress, PDF, PostScript, Fonts and stuff...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:53:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: s</title>
		<link>http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#comment-40064</link>
		<dc:creator>s</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:59:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#comment-40064</guid>
		<description>In simplistic terms:

1. Replace failed drive with good drive</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In simplistic terms:</p>
<p>1. Replace failed drive with good drive</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Davis</title>
		<link>http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#comment-40030</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Davis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 02:32:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#comment-40030</guid>
		<description>Raid 5 only requires a minimum of 3 disks.  With 4 disks, you will only loose 1/4 of your HD space.  As for file size, that is upto whatever file system you put on the volume created by you Raid array.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Raid 5 only requires a minimum of 3 disks.  With 4 disks, you will only loose 1/4 of your HD space.  As for file size, that is upto whatever file system you put on the volume created by you Raid array.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kingsley</title>
		<link>http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#comment-38542</link>
		<dc:creator>Kingsley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:59:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#comment-38542</guid>
		<description>I need to deal with very large data set with typical file size of 1-7gb, hundreds of them, in a workstation. Both read and write. I can only fit 4 disks for RAID purpose, what&#039;s the best option? Would Raid 3 be better than Raid10? It seems like Raid 3 can write in parallel in more than 1/2 of the total number of disks and lose only 1/4 of total storage.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I need to deal with very large data set with typical file size of 1-7gb, hundreds of them, in a workstation. Both read and write. I can only fit 4 disks for RAID purpose, what&#8217;s the best option? Would Raid 3 be better than Raid10? It seems like Raid 3 can write in parallel in more than 1/2 of the total number of disks and lose only 1/4 of total storage.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arun</title>
		<link>http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#comment-38310</link>
		<dc:creator>arun</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:00:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#comment-38310</guid>
		<description>se</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>se</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ramesh</title>
		<link>http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#comment-37989</link>
		<dc:creator>Ramesh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:21:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#comment-37989</guid>
		<description>Raid5 5disc failure how to recovery data pl explain</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Raid5 5disc failure how to recovery data pl explain</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Russell Mujee</title>
		<link>http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#comment-37681</link>
		<dc:creator>Russell Mujee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:59:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#comment-37681</guid>
		<description>I have used RAID 6 in one of my server. This has allowed me to create two hot swap disks. I deceided to use it on case scenarios such as: if two active disks fail at the same time. or if two disks will fail at diferent intervals but the chance of getting a new replacement is in the process and has not arrived yet. Featured in a NEC server rack mount.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have used RAID 6 in one of my server. This has allowed me to create two hot swap disks. I deceided to use it on case scenarios such as: if two active disks fail at the same time. or if two disks will fail at diferent intervals but the chance of getting a new replacement is in the process and has not arrived yet. Featured in a NEC server rack mount.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Davis</title>
		<link>http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#comment-35136</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Davis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:05:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#comment-35136</guid>
		<description>What you describe as RAID 3 is really RAID 4.

RAID 2 = bit level striping
RAID 3 = byte level striping
RAID 4 = block level striping
RAID 5 = block level striping with distributed parity</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What you describe as RAID 3 is really RAID 4.</p>
<p>RAID 2 = bit level striping<br />
RAID 3 = byte level striping<br />
RAID 4 = block level striping<br />
RAID 5 = block level striping with distributed parity</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Twain</title>
		<link>http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#comment-31856</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Twain</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:17:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#comment-31856</guid>
		<description>I have head that the government is now doing work on RAID -17 (yes, negative 17).  This technology is based on tensors and promises to put all other RAID to shame.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have head that the government is now doing work on RAID -17 (yes, negative 17).  This technology is based on tensors and promises to put all other RAID to shame.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pinar</title>
		<link>http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#comment-13246</link>
		<dc:creator>Pinar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:36:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#comment-13246</guid>
		<description>Actually you can have RAID 1+0 with only two disks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually you can have RAID 1+0 with only two disks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: max</title>
		<link>http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#comment-61</link>
		<dc:creator>max</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:57:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#comment-61</guid>
		<description>you can get 1+0 on two disk using two partitions. this can be done with software raid. dunno if HW controllers can support this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>you can get 1+0 on two disk using two partitions. this can be done with software raid. dunno if HW controllers can support this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.244 seconds -->
