Ableton Forum

Nicknackerski wrote:

H20nly wrote:if you think about it, RAID doesn't make the best parachute in this situation. if the problem is that the drive(s) will only allow so many writes and you're writing across both drives... then they will go out around roughly the same time.

Don't agree with this. cotdagoo had one fail after a month thats what raid 1 is supposed to safe guard against.
The chances that two will fail after one month is minimal.

i was not referring to a drive randomly failing after a month. cotdagoo's concern seemed to be that a drive has a finite number or writes... i was pointing out that RAID "protection" could be a farce if both drives are predicted (by the manufacturer) to die at the same time. the whole notion of RAID is to protect from a single drive failure.

so it is stressful to you when you make a claim and someone points out that it might not be all it's cracked up to be.

your fragility is noted.

H20nly wrote:so it is stressful to you when you make a claim and someone points out that it might not be all it's cracked up to be.

your fragility is noted.

Awesome. Ok I'll bite.
Lets look at your claims:

H20nly wrote:the whole notion of RAID is to protect from a single drive failure.

Nope. RAID 0 is for increased performance. A Single drive failure renders both drives erased.

H20nly wrote:i was pointing out that RAID "protection" could be a farce if both drives are predicted (by the manufacturer) to die at the same time

Then what is the point of RAID? Drives can die any time. Things go wrong. Thats life. I'd rather have two chances of recovering work with RAID 1 than just taking a pessamistic view like you are.
Having RAID 1 Reduces the risk.

Lastly
I actually have a 3GB/sec SSD Drive.
I actually have a 7200rpm HDD.
The SSD drive renders a synth to Freeze faster.
The operating system boots in about 6 seconds,
Live opens almost instantly!
SSDs are awesome!

I was trying to help the thread owner with his problem, but i know for future reference not to bother.
Cheers
Bye bye.

Nicknackerski wrote:

H20nly wrote:so it is stressful to you when you make a claim and someone points out that it might not be all it's cracked up to be.

your fragility is noted.

Awesome. Ok I'll bite.
Lets look at your claims:

H20nly wrote:the whole notion of RAID is to protect from a single drive failure.

Nope. RAID 0 is for increased performance. A Single drive failure renders both drives erased.

H20nly wrote:i was pointing out that RAID "protection" could be a farce if both drives are predicted (by the manufacturer) to die at the same time

Then what is the point of RAID? Drives can die any time. Things go wrong. Thats life. I'd rather have two chances of recovering work with RAID 1 than just taking a pessamistic view like you are.
Having RAID 1 Reduces the risk.

Lastly
I actually have a 3GB/sec SSD Drive.
I actually have a 7200rpm HDD.
The SSD drive renders a synth to Freeze faster.
The operating system boots in about 6 seconds,
Live opens almost instantly!
SSDs are awesome!

I was trying to help the thread owner with his problem, but i know for future reference not to bother.
Cheers
Bye bye.

thanks for your help.

wow. seriously?

I said that RAID "may not be the best parachute".

which one of your uses for RAID do you want to grind against me for - redundancy or performance? Read your posts.

I'm not trying to battle the pros and Cons of anything. I was playing devil's advocate for contagoo... because he was worried about the amount of limited writes associated with an SSD.

don't take it so personal. if I said something to offend you in a past thread address that. don't try to double talk your own point to trifle with me. I didn't even remotely imply any aggression or sarcasm in my posts about this topic. If you have something to discuss and/share then cool. Educate us... Otherwise chill.