On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Kevin Bailey <<a href="mailto:ke-myth@retriever.dyndns.org">ke-myth@retriever.dyndns.org</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 04:12:55PM -0500, John Drescher wrote:<br>
><br>
> If you use storage groups each drive is independent so no increased<br>
> risk of down time. I assume that was what Lan Barnes was talking about<br>
> with his post.<br>
<br>
</div>When a mounted drive (used for a storage group) goes down,<br>
your box is dead. At least, you can't record any of those<br>
shows until you replace the drive. (Linux may freak out in<br>
other ways too, I don't know.)<br>
</blockquote><div><br>That might be true of IDE drives or particular controllers, but it's not true generally. SCSI and SATA controllers often handle drive failures pretty gracefully.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
When one drive in a RAID array dies, angels may cry but<br>
nobody on earth even notices.<br>
</blockquote></div><br>If it's RAID 0 you'll notice. Again, you're generalising.<br><br>Cheers,<br>Steve<br>