Can someone please explain to be why anyone would consciously make the decision to put eight 4tb drives in Raid 0?

Can someone please explain to be why anyone would consciously make the decision to put eight 4tb drives in Raid 0?

Attached: 1543637659526.png (1362x665, 635K)

Attached: unlimited-power.webm (586x250, 662K)

It starts off just fucking around and just putting everything in raid 0 just to see all that huge pool of space but then you realize that you’re possibly going to lose a third or half of it just to be “safe” so fuck being safe

As he explained it, he "needed" these 4TB.
Sometimes very retarded decisions can be made, the slave replica for one very important gov website is set up on a 1U server with for drives in RAID0. We just hope the day will never come till the end of the contract. The manager is retarded.

Because everyone goes through life saying "why do I need backups?" until their first data loss incident, then they realize the need for redundancy and do so the rest of their life. If you're lucky, the data you lost was useless garbage when you were a kid and you learned the lesson early. If you're unlucky you get to adulthood and have the potential to make mistakes like that guy.

Greed.

Sometimes you just need to man up and stop being a pussy op

Attached: image.jpg (1920x263, 69K)

If it were a development server and you needed the performance and the data was just a stale copy for testing.

There's literally nothing wrong with this. It gives you 32TB of 800MB/s sequential storage.

The problem was that this tard used it for long term storage without a backup.

How does it feel to be an idiot?

There is such a thing as "useless" data that's big and needs fast access: Jow Forums denizens' UHD H.265-encoded anime collections are an excellent example.

Scratch disks

performance

Attached: 1532223008989.png (500x478, 73K)

Retard

>with seagate drives

Attached: images.jpg (225x225, 9K)

How's it feel to be a pussy?
>WAAAH MY DATA

RAID0 means you lose everything if even one drive fails and each drive could fail at any point so 8 drives makes you 8x as likely to lose all of your data

32TB worth of scrath disks?

Why not? Have you ever dealt with RED camera footage? They are enormous. Makes perfect sense when editing them

You know, we once had a test for a senior administrator position - to catch people unaware, one of the questions was exactly this:
"A data backup policy should strive to maximize performance and eliminate redundancy"

Because this was one of the last questions (of 60), and people were already tired of the test, almost everyone got this one wrong. It's one of those "nice words" question, where the whole thing _feels_ like it should be true, but the last part isn't. I mean, we should all strive to eliminate redundancy, right?
(Not for backups, because backups ARE redundancy).

Do there exist RAID configurations that allow you to configure the degree of redundancy/capacity dynamically? That is, it's possible to grow and shrink the size of the logical container depending on usage without having to reformat the whole thing.

I think that would be the job of the file system. I don't think a hardware RAID controller could do this.

If a company can afford RED cameras and use a fucking yolo 0 array of 8 drives, maybe they should be affording a new IT guy as well, if you know what I mean.

Hardware based redundancy with RAID is very inflexible. If you want redundancy that can be reconfigured after the fact you need to use software. The easiest way to have redundancy is to just keep multiple copies of important files across different drives, systems, or even off-site if they're important enough. RAID is good for keeping an important system up so that failures can be fixed during scheduled downtime. I don't really see it as something the average person really needs to concern themselves with. Just keep backups and make sure they're kept up to date.