- Re: hard drive backups with RAID 0
- Posted by Joep on July 25th, 2003
Don't know about Ghost, DriveImage can, HARDWARE RAID that is.
--
Joep
"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:ZAidnSphL5Xkfb2iXTWJjw@comcast.com...
- Posted by Timothy Daniels on July 25th, 2003
Does a RAID adapter card such as those made by
Promise qualify as "hardware RAID"?
TimmyDan
"Joep" answered:
- Posted by Joep on July 25th, 2003
"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:nwmdnZ_iwYrlHryiXTWJiw@comcast.com...
Yes. I have been using that myself.
--
Joep
- Posted by fool shafter on July 26th, 2003
Folkert Rienstra <see_Reply-To@myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:bfu7g3$ihmdf$1@ID-79662.news.uni-berlin.de...
Utterly clueless, as always.
- Posted by Rod Speed on July 26th, 2003
Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in
message news:zQWdnb2qSYdCdr-iXTWJiw@comcast.com...
Ghost doesnt officially support it, Drive Image does.
I think defragging is an anal waste of time today.
- Posted by Folkert Rienstra on July 26th, 2003
"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message news:zQWdnb2qSYdCdr-iXTWJiw@comcast.com...
Yes. The software doesn't know about RAID unless it
passes bios or driver.
I have nothing to add to what already has been said about it.
- Posted by Eric Gisin on July 27th, 2003
Oh no, another rift in the Ron/Rod personality continuum! What do the nntp
headers reveal?
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.217.27.237
"fool shafter" <fs@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3f22cc40$0$23608$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net. au...
|
| Folkert Rienstra <see_Reply-To@myweb.nl> wrote in message
| news:bfu7g3$ihmdf$1@ID-79662.news.uni-berlin.de...
| > Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote
|
| >> Does a RAID adapter card such as those made
| >> by Promise qualify as "hardware RAID"?
|
| > Some do and some don't. They have both: firmware and hardware RAID.
|
| > All RAID is software driven.
| > In software RAID it is the OS driver and there is no RAID bios
| > so there is no boot capability.
| > In hardware RAID it is a dedicated firmware that runs on it's own
| > processor and comes with a RAID bios and an OS driver.
| > In firmware RAID (which is similar to hardware RAID) there is no
| > dedicated processor, the firmware is run by the MoBo CPU.
|
| Utterly clueless, as always.
|
- Posted by Mike Tomlinson on July 27th, 2003
In article <3f22cc40$0$23608$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au>, fool
shafter <fs@nospam.com> writes
Oh look, it's the fuckwitted Woddles morphing out of killfiles again.
So what exactly was wrong with Folkert's explanation, Woddles?
- Posted by Joshua P. Hill on July 27th, 2003
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 07:13:56 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I find it can make a big difference. For example, I tried to play a
video file yesterday and the playback was jerky. Turns out it had
fragmented into over 1000 fragments (the disk was almost full).
Defragmenting fixed the problem.
I've also found that some operations become noticeably sluggish if I
don't defragment regularly. For example, Agent takes much longer to
purge and compact files, and I have a large autohide toolbar with
icons on it that loads slowly if my system partition becomes
fragmented.
Josh
- Posted by Rod Speed on July 27th, 2003
Joshua P. Hill <joshhill.REMOVE.THIS@snet.net> wrote in
message news:qo88ivsb907ur7ii1fojo6kbrrj5tfqftp@4ax.com...
Stupid way to run a system with hard drives so cheap now.
So would much more free space.
More mindlessly anal stuff.
You've clearly got a completely fucked system.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense to fix that than
it does to obsessively defrag all the time.
- Posted by J.Clarke on July 27th, 2003
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:48:48 -0400
Joshua P. Hill <joshhill.REMOVE.THIS@snet.net> wrote:
Then you are the slowest technician in town. A disk-to-disk transfer of
the contents generally takes a good deal less time than a full
defragging run.
I find it interesting that you can afford to wait for defragging to run.
OS and apps on one drive, data on one or more additional drives, swap on
a third drive.
--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
- Posted by Joshua P. Hill on July 27th, 2003
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 06:03:04 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Not when you're about to replace it with a new system with new
generation SATA drives. It would take far more time to order the
drive, open up the case, and transfer the material than it takes to
defragment every few weeks.
Yeah, right, and so would running it on a supercomputer. If there's a
program that solves the problem, I see no reason not to use it.
Nonsense: I have to wait for these things to complete and that wastes
/my/ time. If your time is worth less, fine, but do not suppose that
your circumstances or priorities apply to everybody else.
Oh? And how would you go about "fixing" these things, given that the
OS, programs, and data files are on a partition that is something like
60% free?
Josh
- Posted by Folkert Rienstra on July 27th, 2003
"Mike Tomlinson" <mike@nospam.jasper.org.uk> wrote in message news:jUg17UAwnAJ$Ewo5@nospam.jasper.org.uk...
Nothing, of course. That in itself *was* the whole problem.
As he freely admits, he's just seeking my attention.
Woddles lonely, eh Woddles?! Woddles not like being lonely.
- Posted by Rod Speed on July 27th, 2003
Joshua P. Hill <joshhill.REMOVE.THIS@snet.net> wrote in
message news:3mk8iv06f3e8llqfcnj3dh2hdkvhrpr4pf@4ax.com...
What happens with that particular situation is completely
irrelevant to the general question of defragging.
Mindless silly stuff.
Gone blind yet ?
More fool you when the real fix is more space.
Poor widdle diddums.
You're the one mindlessly waffling on about what you
do in YOUR situation that has no relevance what so ever
to what makes sense with a decently configured system.
More free space so it doesnt frag that obscenely, stupid.
Which doesnt need obsessive defragging,
you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
- Posted by Joshua P. Hill on July 28th, 2003
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:17:47 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Hardly. It is evidence of the utility of defragmentation. Now, if you
wish to modify your statement to a more reasonable "defragmentation is
sometimes necessary when an NTFS volume is heavily used," you will
still be wrong, but less so.
Oh, right -- it's mindless to suggest that a couple of mouse clicks
every few weeks are both cheaper and less time consuming than buying a
new drive every five minutes.
The only prick around here is you.
Hats off, gentlemen -- we have a real genius here! Everybody in the
world should always run there disks at no more than 45% of capacity.
Anyone who doesn't waste hundreds of dollars and hours of time
upgrading a computer that will be replaced in a couple of months
rather than clicking on "Speed Disk" and "Optimize" every couple of
weeks is a "fool."
Remind me not to let you near /my/ business -- you probably think that
the most convenient and economical way to fix a faded coat of paint is
to replace the building.
Ah, I see. Anybody whose time is more valuable than yours -- and it's
hard to conclude from your constant presence, your rude and coarse
manner, and your questionable capabilities that that isn't pretty much
everybody -- is, by definition, a self-indulgent whiner.
Yeah, it's common knowledge that everyone buys twice as much storage
as they need just so that NTFS won't fragment as badly.
And you call people who run defragmenters obsessive!
That partition is 60% free, you blithering lunatic, more than enough
to insure that NTFS fragments minimally.
You've reduced yourself to the rather pathetic point of claiming that
any evidence that doesn't agree with your undocumented assertion is a
lie.
And so we have you successively pointing out that defragmentation
doesn't do any good, and then that yes, it does do good if video
material won't play but only if your disks aren't 60% empty and you
should drop everything and upgrade them rather than spending a few
milliseconds every couple of weeks starting a defrag program, and then
that yes, defragging does speed up your computer even if your disks
aren't full but only if you're so anal that you don't mind wasting
time because you're computer has slowed down rather than taking a few
milliseconds every couple of weeks to make two mouse clicks, and then
that no, it doesn't need defragging even if it slows down because
/you/ say so, so any evidence to the contrary must be a lie.
Sheesh, I knew that the regulars here consider you an obnoxious loon,
but I didn't remember quite how /right/ they were.
Josh
- Posted by Rod Speed on July 28th, 2003
Joshua P. Hill <joshhill.REMOVE.THIS@snet.net> wrote in
message news:ieq8iv4e68pm46dbi6o788993s9c79k1nj@4ax.com...
Fraid so.
Nope, its evidence of the terminal stupidity
of running drives with that little free space.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
Fraid so.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
And you've obviously snapped yours off long ago.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
You dont have one and desperate wanking doesnt
qualify as /my/ business any time soon, child.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
Obvious lie. You've clearly wanked yourself blind long ago.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
Obvious lie. Nothing like you said previously, pathological liar.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
Obvious lie. Nothing like you said previously, pathological liar.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
- Posted by Joshua P. Hill on July 28th, 2003
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:06:33 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
wrote:
<snip IKYABWAI blather>
C'mon, Roddie, even you should be able to lose less wretchedly than
/that./
Josh
- Posted by Rod Speed on July 28th, 2003
Some pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist/pathological liar claiming to be
Joshua P. Hill <joshhill@snet.net> desperately attempted
to bullshit its way out of its predicament in message
news:t019iv4mss09vkkgnc46smd6fpv29qote2@4ax.com...
and fooled absolutely no one at all. As always.
- Posted by Joshua P. Hill on July 28th, 2003
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:25:32 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Uh, riiiight.
Sorry, guy, but you said defragmentation was worthless.
I pointed out the obvious: that it is not.
End of story.
Josh
- Posted by Rod Speed on July 28th, 2003
Some pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist/pathological liar claiming to be
Joshua P. Hill <joshhill@snet.net> desperately attempted
to bullshit its way out of its predicament in message
news:fkiaiv4hvaqg5ischetgk97a8u0106om7m@4ax.com...
and fooled absolutely no one at all. As always.
