Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Jan 2010 16:57 UTC, submitted by wanker90210
Hardware, Embedded Systems ACM's latest journal had an interesting article about RAID which suggested it might be time for triple parity raid. "How much longer will current RAID techniques persevere? The RAID levels were codified in the late 1980s; double-parity RAID, known as RAID-6, is the current standard for high-availability, space-efficient storage. The incredible growth of hard-drive capacities, however, could impose serious limitations on the reliability even of RAID-6 systems. Recent trends in hard drives show that triple-parity RAID must soon become pervasive."
Thread beginning with comment 404925
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: RAID Z
by strcpy on Tue 19th Jan 2010 15:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: RAID Z"
strcpy
Member since:
2009-05-20


Gee, why can't I use ZFS on my Linux severs?
Wait a minute, let me think...
CDDL... Not being able to reverse engineer a GPL'ed version of ZFS under Linux due to patents...


Gee, you are a Linux troll.

It always amazes me when these Linux zealots, without any hesitation, assume that something is either somehow bad or irrelevant if it is not part of Linux. And if it is part of Linux, it can never be bad or irrelevant. Gee.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: RAID Z (OT)
by gilboa on Tue 19th Jan 2010 18:03 in reply to "RE[4]: RAID Z"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

By your comment I assume that you don't really appreciate the fine irony of naming yourself strcpy, right?

- Gilboa

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: RAID Z (OT)
by strcpy on Tue 19th Jan 2010 18:23 in reply to "RE[5]: RAID Z (OT)"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

Sure.

And what I mean by this is that instead of appreciating different operating systems and being glad that (Open)Solaris has ZFS, you come here ranting about patents and Linux, implying that Solaris/ZFS would not be production ready, and even bringing CDDL to the table even though it is GPL that is incompatible (even with itself, duh). That's enough signs of Linux zealotry for me.

Edited 2010-01-19 18:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2