Talk:RAID

Uncited claim

The paragraph beginning with "RAID is not a good alternative to backing up data" needs citing for this claim. Also, the term "unsafe" sounds like an opinion. All of Section 3 is uncited. --jacobmlee 10:13, 28 Oct 2009 CDT

I am not sure that this is relevant to the article. I know it is a well meaning warning, but it is more pertinent to the subject of backup methodology then it is a discussion of RAID technology. --Andrew L Rice 20:15, 29 Jan 2010 PST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.234.30 (talk)

I don't think this statement needs citation, as in the paragraph it is well described, why this his the case. It's rather a matter of common sense and understanding what RAID does and what Backup does, than citing what others have written about this thematic. --frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.44.4 (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Article inconsistent regarding backup suitability of RAID

In section RAID 0 the article states, that "[...] RAID 1 mirrors the contents of the disks, making a form of 1:1 ratio realtime backup [...]" and "[...] RAID 1 offers a good backup solution. [...]" whereas in section RAID is not data backup it says, that "[...] RAID is not a good alternative to backing up data [...]". That is irritating and inconsistent. IMHO the latter is correct and stating, that RAID can offer a backup solution is technically wrong and dangerous. The section RAID 1 is more about the suitability to back up data than about how RAID 0 is organized. I suggest to rewrite the section completely --194.94.44.4 (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:AT

I imagine the name of this article is a touchy subject but I had to edit the tortured lead. WP:AT calls for alternate names in the first sentence so I felt that was more important than fighting over which came first Redundant array of inexpensive disks or Redundant array of independent disks. I've listed them both as alternate names and then moved up the description of what a RAID is as per MOS. Why is it notable. The remainder of the lead is about those Berkley folks defining it but the marketers redefining it. Sorry, I think I'm following the rules here without losing the point that there's controversy about the "I" in the title. Hutcher (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I spent years working as a storage engineer and readily acknowledge that there's no universal agreement about whether the "I" in RAID represents "independent" or "inexpensive" - and in many implementations, the disks in question are neither. However, I'm removing the reference to "Random Array of Insignificant Devices." This is pure whimsy, has no basis in common terminology, and miserably fails the Google test. Bonehed (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

References

Some references are out of date:

Reference 14 says it is deprecated and replaced by http://raid.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Linux_Raid

Reference 15 no longer exists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.85.79 (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In section 9.1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#Operating_system_based There is an uncited sentence under windows raid: "RAID functionality in Windows is slower than hardware RAID, but allows a RAID array to be moved to another machine with no compatibility issues." Isn't that true for all software raids? Why is that listed only under windows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.113.6.192 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Standard Levels - RAID 0

Any disk failure destroys the array, which has greater consequences with more disks in the array (at a minimum, catastrophic data loss is twice as severe compared to single drives without RAID).

I know little about RAID, so am not editing, but it seems to me that the sentence above should read:

Any disk failure destroys the array, and the liklihood of failure increases with more disks in the array (at a minimum, catastrophic data loss is twice as likely compared to single drives without RAID).

Apologies if I'm all wrong on this. Nonukes (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Nah, you are right. Go ahead and change it. (Yes, I'm being lazy here :-) ) 24.203.68.10 (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)