Talk:RAID


Former good article nominee RAID was one of the Engineering and technology good article nominees, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
May 22, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Computing / Software / Hardware (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon
Portal icon Information technology portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
 This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
 This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as High-importance).
 

Archives (Index)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Threads older than 60 days may be archived by MiszaBot.


References

IEEE.org as of 4-6 Dec 1991 and updated as of Aug 2002 cited Inexpensive, [1]

IEEE.org as of June 29 2009-July 2 2009 and updated as of 29 September 2009 cited Independent, [2]

NetApp -Independent [3]

EMC - Independent [4]

Western Digital Independent [5]

A paper from Duke University Dept. of Computer Science in 1993 - Inexpensive [6]

  1. ^ http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=183060
  2. ^ http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=5270303
  3. ^ https://kb.netapp.com/support/index?page=content&id=3010575
  4. ^ http://www.emc.com/backup-and-recovery/disk-library/disk-library-for-mainframe.htm#!offerings
  5. ^ http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=210
  6. ^ http://people.ee.duke.edu/~kst/markovpapers/Manish-RAID.pdf

Array failure rate

The Array Failure Rate, as defined in the table, lists the probability of the data loss in the given period under assumption that no drives are replaced during this period. This metric, while in itself valid, is not what one would typically expect as the "failre rate". Leaving the dead drive without replacement is against any maintenance practice and/or recommendations. I suppose we should at least add another footnote clarifying this? Alexey V. Gubin (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

RAID 2

According to Patterson and Hennessy 2012 [1], RAID 2 is Error Detecting and Correcting Code, and RAID 3 is Bit-Interleaved Parity. This is different from what is in the article. Espertus (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


Neutrality in RAID 5 vs RAID 10 for databases?

If the section concludes, "In short, the choice between RAID 5 and RAID 10 involves a complicated mixture of factors. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, as the choice of one over the other must be dictated by everything from the I/O characteristics of the database, to business risk, to worst case degraded-state throughput, to the number and type of drives present in the array itself. Over the course of the life of a database, one may even see situations where RAID 5 is initially favored, but RAID 10 slowly becomes the better choice, and vice versa.", I don't see how the neutrality of the section can be called into question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.214.16 (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)