Bwahahahahhahahahahhahahahh!

You're not too bright, Mooron. You should have gotten a clue
from the headers. Backoffice (as in backorifice). It wouldn't
surprise me if you got a nasty little worm to contend with now.


CN

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:9E6Nd.9587$tU6.3689@edtnps91...
Stupid Site..... you're a SPAMMER!!


"O. Spreitzer" wrote in message
y.telekom.at...
http://www.segelcenter.org

Nah Cappy....I don't get worms or trojans... and I've never had a virus on
any of my computers. The way security is set up I have to approve anything
going out or coming in.
Plus the important **** is stored on disconnected pony drives and my raid
system allows me to hot swap drives.... I've got a complete mirror of my
system on an alternate HD.

backdoor is so old it needs a walker to get around.

CM

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
news

Bwahahahahhahahahahhahahahh!
You're not too bright, Mooron. You should have gotten a clue
from the headers. Backoffice (as in backorifice). It wouldn't
surprise me if you got a nasty little worm to contend with now.


CN

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
news:9E6Nd.9587$tU6.3689@edtnps91...
Stupid Site..... you're a SPAMMER!!


"O. Spreitzer" wrote in message
y.telekom.at...
http://www.segelcenter.org

Careful Mooron. Neal will insist on having a backdoor.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
news:XQ8Nd.11955$tU6.2772@edtnps91...
Nah Cappy....I don't get worms or trojans... and I've never had a virus on
any of my computers. The way security is set up I have to approve anything
going out or coming in.
Plus the important **** is stored on disconnected pony drives and my raid
system allows me to hot swap drives.... I've got a complete mirror of my
system on an alternate HD.

backdoor is so old it needs a walker to get around.

CM

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
news

Bwahahahahhahahahahhahahahh!
You're not too bright, Mooron. You should have gotten a clue
from the headers. Backoffice (as in backorifice). It wouldn't
surprise me if you got a nasty little worm to contend with now.


CN

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
news:9E6Nd.9587$tU6.3689@edtnps91...
Stupid Site..... you're a SPAMMER!!


"O. Spreitzer" wrote in message
y.telekom.at...
http://www.segelcenter.org

I've got a complete mirror of my
system on an alternate HD.


All that means is that if you have RAID 0 you won't know which hard drive
has been infected, and if you have RAID 1 then both hard drives will be
infected. A RAID array does nothing to protect you against worms or
viruses, only hard drive failures, and a RAID 0 array won't even protect you
against that. In fact a RAID 0 increases the chances that you will have a
mechanical failure at some point.

My computer is set up with both RAID 0 and RAID 1 (RAID 1+0) so that I get
the benefits of boths types of systems. The two hard drives set up in RAID
0 speed up all reading and writing functions, so opening programs takes half
the time, writing or reading data takes half the time. Then I have two more
hard drives in a RAID 1 array, automatically backing up everything that
happens in the RAID 0 array. For a total of 4 120GB hard drives. (240 GB
storage capacity, plus a complete backup).

Lonny


"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
news:XQ8Nd.11955$tU6.2772@edtnps91...
Nah Cappy....I don't get worms or trojans... and I've never had a virus on
any of my computers. The way security is set up I have to approve anything
going out or coming in.
Plus the important **** is stored on disconnected pony drives and my raid
system allows me to hot swap drives.... I've got a complete mirror of my
system on an alternate HD.

backdoor is so old it needs a walker to get around.

CM

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
news

Bwahahahahhahahahahhahahahh!
You're not too bright, Mooron. You should have gotten a clue
from the headers. Backoffice (as in backorifice). It wouldn't
surprise me if you got a nasty little worm to contend with now.


CN

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
news:9E6Nd.9587$tU6.3689@edtnps91...
Stupid Site..... you're a SPAMMER!!


"O. Spreitzer" wrote in message
y.telekom.at...
http://www.segelcenter.org

Lonny Bruce wrote in message
newsOJNd.22763$uc.20667@trnddc03...
I've got a complete mirror of my
system on an alternate HD.


All that means is that if you have RAID 0 you won't know which hard drive
has been infected, and if you have RAID 1 then both hard drives will be
infected. A RAID array does nothing to protect you against worms or
viruses, only hard drive failures, and a RAID 0 array won't even protect
you
against that. In fact a RAID 0 increases the chances that you will have a
mechanical failure at some point.

My computer is set up with both RAID 0 and RAID 1 (RAID 1+0) so that I get
the benefits of boths types of systems. The two hard drives set up in
RAID
0 speed up all reading and writing functions, so opening programs takes
half
the time, writing or reading data takes half the time. Then I have two
more
hard drives in a RAID 1 array, automatically backing up everything that
happens in the RAID 0 array. For a total of 4 120GB hard drives. (240 GB
storage capacity, plus a complete backup).

Lonny

But this means that you have four large hard drives always running at 7200
rpm and therefore destined ultimately to all wear out at approximately the
same time, so your backup is going to be vulnerable at the same time as the
operating disks.
To avoid this problem I back up periodically on a USB external hard drive,
which on the days I am not using it is disconnected and therefore does not
wear. I expect you will point out that the mean time between failures of a
modern disk is very long, but it is certainly finite, and if you leave your
machine on for long periods the hours soon mount up.

Agreed.

And beyond that, an arguement could be made that with 4 hard drives I am 4
times as likely to experience a hard drive failure.

Still, one hard drive will fail before the others will. When it fails, it
can be replaced, and the data rebuilt before the next one fails. BTW, I am
using 10,000 RPMs and SATA, not PATA, so I enjoy faster transfers, with 8 MB
cache, as opposed to 1 MB cache used with most PATA hard drives.

With any RAID array, backups are still needed. The best kind are off site,
so as to protect against common accidents, such as lightening strikes,
fires, etc. Certainly using an external hard drive (which is also what I do
with a cute little 2.5" 40 GB USB hard drive) is better than nothing, but
off site is the best.

Thumb drives are a great invention. Because someone can use it for a
backup, at say a work computer, and then put it in their pocket, or their
purse, and will leave the premises with the backup.

Lonny


"Edgar" wrote in message
...

Lonny Bruce wrote in message
newsOJNd.22763$uc.20667@trnddc03...
I've got a complete mirror of my
system on an alternate HD.


All that means is that if you have RAID 0 you won't know which hard drive
has been infected, and if you have RAID 1 then both hard drives will be
infected. A RAID array does nothing to protect you against worms or
viruses, only hard drive failures, and a RAID 0 array won't even protect
you
against that. In fact a RAID 0 increases the chances that you will have
a
mechanical failure at some point.

My computer is set up with both RAID 0 and RAID 1 (RAID 1+0) so that I
get
the benefits of boths types of systems. The two hard drives set up in
RAID
0 speed up all reading and writing functions, so opening programs takes
half
the time, writing or reading data takes half the time. Then I have two
more
hard drives in a RAID 1 array, automatically backing up everything that
happens in the RAID 0 array. For a total of 4 120GB hard drives. (240
GB
storage capacity, plus a complete backup).

Lonny

But this means that you have four large hard drives always running at
7200
rpm and therefore destined ultimately to all wear out at approximately the
same time, so your backup is going to be vulnerable at the same time as
the
operating disks.
To avoid this problem I back up periodically on a USB external hard drive,
which on the days I am not using it is disconnected and therefore does not
wear. I expect you will point out that the mean time between failures of a
modern disk is very long, but it is certainly finite, and if you leave
your
machine on for long periods the hours soon mount up.

Right. I'm using SATA also. Four 250 gig drives. Two sets of RAID 1. One
mirrored to the second. Does nothing or infections of course, but I run
fairly extensive and redundant checks on that stuff. Then, as a final backup
scheme, I back up to DVD on a monthly basis. So far, I have three separate
HD crashes and never dropped a digit. The only clue that I had that
something was wrong was the system became sluggish. When I rebooted, I saw
the problem. Now, I've set up alerts to tell me when something critical
happens.

One could also use a system like Xdrive, but I find it clumsy and slow.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Lonny Bruce" wrote in message
news:IoKNd.13047$Dc.10231@trnddc06...
Agreed.

And beyond that, an arguement could be made that with 4 hard drives I am 4
times as likely to experience a hard drive failure.

Still, one hard drive will fail before the others will. When it fails, it
can be replaced, and the data rebuilt before the next one fails. BTW, I
am using 10,000 RPMs and SATA, not PATA, so I enjoy faster transfers, with
8 MB cache, as opposed to 1 MB cache used with most PATA hard drives.

With any RAID array, backups are still needed. The best kind are off
site, so as to protect against common accidents, such as lightening
strikes, fires, etc. Certainly using an external hard drive (which is
also what I do with a cute little 2.5" 40 GB USB hard drive) is better
than nothing, but off site is the best.

Thumb drives are a great invention. Because someone can use it for a
backup, at say a work computer, and then put it in their pocket, or their
purse, and will leave the premises with the backup.

Lonny


"Edgar" wrote in message
...

Lonny Bruce wrote in message
newsOJNd.22763$uc.20667@trnddc03...
I've got a complete mirror of my
system on an alternate HD.


All that means is that if you have RAID 0 you won't know which hard
drive
has been infected, and if you have RAID 1 then both hard drives will be
infected. A RAID array does nothing to protect you against worms or
viruses, only hard drive failures, and a RAID 0 array won't even protect
you
against that. In fact a RAID 0 increases the chances that you will have
a
mechanical failure at some point.

My computer is set up with both RAID 0 and RAID 1 (RAID 1+0) so that I
get
the benefits of boths types of systems. The two hard drives set up in
RAID
0 speed up all reading and writing functions, so opening programs takes
half
the time, writing or reading data takes half the time. Then I have two
more
hard drives in a RAID 1 array, automatically backing up everything that
happens in the RAID 0 array. For a total of 4 120GB hard drives. (240
GB
storage capacity, plus a complete backup).

Lonny

But this means that you have four large hard drives always running at
7200
rpm and therefore destined ultimately to all wear out at approximately
the
same time, so your backup is going to be vulnerable at the same time as
the
operating disks.
To avoid this problem I back up periodically on a USB external hard
drive,
which on the days I am not using it is disconnected and therefore does
not
wear. I expect you will point out that the mean time between failures of
a
modern disk is very long, but it is certainly finite, and if you leave
your
machine on for long periods the hours soon mount up.

The real problem is a system that's not very secure.

You need help.

CN


"JG" wrote in message ...
Right. I'm using SATA also. Four 250 gig drives. Two sets of RAID 1. One
mirrored to the second. Does nothing or infections of course, but I run
fairly extensive and redundant checks on that stuff. Then, as a final backup
scheme, I back up to DVD on a monthly basis. So far, I have three separate
HD crashes and never dropped a digit. The only clue that I had that
something was wrong was the system became sluggish. When I rebooted, I saw
the problem. Now, I've set up alerts to tell me when something critical
happens.

One could also use a system like Xdrive, but I find it clumsy and slow.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Lonny Bruce" wrote in message
news:IoKNd.13047$Dc.10231@trnddc06...
Agreed.

And beyond that, an arguement could be made that with 4 hard drives I am 4
times as likely to experience a hard drive failure.

Still, one hard drive will fail before the others will. When it fails, it
can be replaced, and the data rebuilt before the next one fails. BTW, I
am using 10,000 RPMs and SATA, not PATA, so I enjoy faster transfers, with
8 MB cache, as opposed to 1 MB cache used with most PATA hard drives.

With any RAID array, backups are still needed. The best kind are off
site, so as to protect against common accidents, such as lightening
strikes, fires, etc. Certainly using an external hard drive (which is
also what I do with a cute little 2.5" 40 GB USB hard drive) is better
than nothing, but off site is the best.

Thumb drives are a great invention. Because someone can use it for a
backup, at say a work computer, and then put it in their pocket, or their
purse, and will leave the premises with the backup.

Lonny


"Edgar" wrote in message
...

Lonny Bruce wrote in message
newsOJNd.22763$uc.20667@trnddc03...
I've got a complete mirror of my
system on an alternate HD.


All that means is that if you have RAID 0 you won't know which hard
drive
has been infected, and if you have RAID 1 then both hard drives will be
infected. A RAID array does nothing to protect you against worms or
viruses, only hard drive failures, and a RAID 0 array won't even protect
you
against that. In fact a RAID 0 increases the chances that you will have
a
mechanical failure at some point.

My computer is set up with both RAID 0 and RAID 1 (RAID 1+0) so that I
get
the benefits of boths types of systems. The two hard drives set up in
RAID
0 speed up all reading and writing functions, so opening programs takes
half
the time, writing or reading data takes half the time. Then I have two
more
hard drives in a RAID 1 array, automatically backing up everything that
happens in the RAID 0 array. For a total of 4 120GB hard drives. (240
GB
storage capacity, plus a complete backup).

Lonny

But this means that you have four large hard drives always running at
7200
rpm and therefore destined ultimately to all wear out at approximately
the
same time, so your backup is going to be vulnerable at the same time as
the
operating disks.
To avoid this problem I back up periodically on a USB external hard
drive,
which on the days I am not using it is disconnected and therefore does
not
wear. I expect you will point out that the mean time between failures of
a
modern disk is very long, but it is certainly finite, and if you leave
your
machine on for long periods the hours soon mount up.

Lonny Bruce wrote:

Still, one hard drive will fail before the others will. When it
fails, it can be replaced, and the data rebuilt before the next one
fails. BTW, I am using 10,000 RPMs and SATA, not PATA, so I enjoy
faster transfers, with 8 MB cache, as opposed to 1 MB cache used with
most PATA hard drives.

As a matter of interest, what sort of transfer rates do you get?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

I really can't give you an accurate answer to your question. There are
several factors that go into actual transfer rates.

In other words, there is the rate, when all conditions are perfect (which
they really never are), that data can be transferred. And then there is the
actual rate that you are getting.

I have not benchmarked these drives to know the actual rate that I am
getting on my SATA drives, but the potential rate is much higher than on
PATA drives. Also I have a front bus speed of 800, which is pretty good.
You can have fast transfer rates with the drives, but if the bus is not too
fast, 533 or 400, then that slows down the time it takes for the data to get
to the CPU, right?

A big factor in noticable performance improvement is the large cache. 8 MB
in the SATA vs. 1 MB in the PATA drives. The CPU often asks for the next in
line piece of data from the drives, and having that data already retrieved
and stored in the drive's cache speeds up that whole process, thereby
improving overall performance.

Of course, using RAID 0, striping, cuts read and write time by almost 50%.
All of these factors go into the overall speed and performance of a
computer.

BTW, I am currently using a Pentium 4, 3.0 GHz, but have a new 3.2 GHz that
I am going to upgrade to when I get some time. I have read the 3.4 runs too
hot, and the higher speed than that are too expensive for me.

Lonny


"Wally" wrote in message
. uk...
Lonny Bruce wrote:

Still, one hard drive will fail before the others will. When it
fails, it can be replaced, and the data rebuilt before the next one
fails. BTW, I am using 10,000 RPMs and SATA, not PATA, so I enjoy
faster transfers, with 8 MB cache, as opposed to 1 MB cache used with
most PATA hard drives.

As a matter of interest, what sort of transfer rates do you get?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk