Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
@coldfire Ok, but why use RAID 0? As far as I know it's the most unsecure version of RAID possible, isn't it? Why not use RAID 1, 5 or 10?
-
@sebh0602 Because RAID 0 is the only level storing the data only once and without any checksum. Therefore it’s the level that requires the least amount of space.
I hope I got the terminology right.
I've seen some people on here mention a show called silicon valley, so I thought I would check it out. I start...
2016 Critics Choice Award - Best Comedy Series - Silicon Valley! Nice!
Warning: This contains spoilers for Silicon Valley S4 E10:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
At 5:35 Gilfoyle says: "In order to hold that much data we would have to go RAID 0. [...] If we lose even one platter, we lose Melcher's data. Permanently."
But my question is: Why use RAID at all? Just storing the data without RAID would reduce the complexity, and if one disk fails, only the data on that one disk is lost. Also, I doubt speed is a priority at that point, since the whole thing is running on a home broadband connection, which something like a WD Gold data-center-harddrive (200+ MB/s) can easily max out.
Also, wouldn't it be easier to pay the broadband bill out of their own pocket, instead of moving tons of server equipment to Stanford?
undefined
silicon valley
sorry no more tags because of spoilers