Re: R.A.I.D boxes

In article <3a07ig$b8j_at_emory.mathcs.emory.edu>

           cheung_at_mathcs.emory.edu "Shun Yan Cheung" writes:

> In article <Cz2nHs.IKE_at_world.std.com>,
> Michael E Willett <mew_at_world.std.com> wrote:
> >
> >RAID 3 fails on small reads and small writes and RAID 5 handles large and
> >small writes poorly, while RAID 7 consistently outperforms the single
> >spindle rate. The RAID 7 performance multiple increase over RAID 3 and
> >RAID 5 is a function of the small read/small write/large write mix.
>
> Wow, RAID is upto level 7 now ? I know RAID upto level 6,
> what's new in Level 7 ?
> --
> Shun Yan Cheung | cheung_at_mathcs.emory.edu | Office: (404) 727-3823
> Emory University | cheung_at_emory.bitnet | Fax: (404) 727-5611
> Dept of Math and CS | ``Democracy is a bad form of government, but it's
> Atlanta, GA 30322 | the best we got'' ---- Simon Carmigel
>

Indeed. I have forwarded the RAID7 posting to some very, very fine technical people in the UK who have declared this is a pure SPOOF! They found it hugely amusing but of course deliberately very, very misleading. If you hear of this from anyone, I suggest that you ask for a site / manufacturer who can actually demonstrate it.

-- 
Dave