User talk:Oscarg: Difference between revisions
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
*[http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/imsm/sb/CS-020655.htm Description of RAID 10 at Intel] |
*[http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/imsm/sb/CS-020655.htm Description of RAID 10 at Intel] |
||
Enhanced RAID 10 allowing simultaneous requests |
|||
The technology which I spoke of, which enables simulatenous reads, and in some cases read/writes only for RAID 10 was explained to me a few years ago for Windows Server 2003 machine on HP hardware. I assumed it was available, at least on high end RAID controllers. I will leave that out until I find some evidence for it. |
The technology which I spoke of, which enables simulatenous reads, and in some cases read/writes only for RAID 10 was explained to me a few years ago for Windows Server 2003 machine on HP hardware. I assumed it was available, at least on high end RAID controllers. I will leave that out until I find some evidence for it. |
||
Revision as of 13:24, 13 December 2009
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions!
You might like to check out our tutorial, a resource created especially for new users like yourself.
You also may want to introduce yourself to the community at the new user log.
I would suggest a look through our policies and guidelines.
If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page, or at our questions forum.
I hope very much you enjoy being here with us, and I wish you luck with your contributions.
- Zapptastic at 20:02, Thursday, January 9, 2025 (UTC)
Copyright problems
Hello, Oscarg. Concerning your contribution, Hank Baird, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.codeonemagazine.com/events/apr_06/apr06_events20.html. As a copyright violation, Hank Baird appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Hank Baird has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Hank Baird and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Hank Baird with a link to where we can find that note.
- If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Hank Baird.
However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Oscar, I saw your recent edit to RAID and noticed that there was a lot of wording you took out and then replaced with an unsourced (or unexplained) claim.
If you don't mind, I'm going to revert your edit for now, and if you want we can discuss the change you want to make, and see if we can come to a good conclusion.
We can discuss it either here or on the talk page for RAID – doesn't matter to me.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 03:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Garrettw87. Thanks for your efforts - much appreciated - people like you make Wikipedia great (sorry for the cliche). I Believe you were correct to revert the entry. It is making me research this issue correctly as I should have in the first place :)
I know the part I replaced was factually incorrect in both its premise and conclusion, and was unsourced. I guess my initial entry was a "shoot from the hip response" to that. I intend to make my next one correct, succinct and sourced...
Here is where I am at...
RAID 10 standard will in most cases outperform RAID 5 (and all other RAID levels other than 0), and will at least equal it otherwise (assuming same number of drives etc)
Here are some benchmarks which confirm that.
Enhanced RAID 10 allowing simultaneous requests
The technology which I spoke of, which enables simulatenous reads, and in some cases read/writes only for RAID 10 was explained to me a few years ago for Windows Server 2003 machine on HP hardware. I assumed it was available, at least on high end RAID controllers. I will leave that out until I find some evidence for it.
I will wait for your response before I make the change.
BTW How many sources do you think is appropriate? 1? 3? 5?
I am attempting to find the most authoritative sources - ie commercial reports for commercial devices, rather than bloggers reviewing their motherboard controllers.