|
look at this site
|
Stupid Site..... you're a SPAMMER!!
"O. Spreitzer" wrote in message y.telekom.at... http://www.segelcenter.org |
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$tU6.3689@edtnps91... Stupid Site..... you're a SPAMMER!! "O. Spreitzer" wrote in message y.telekom.at... http://www.segelcenter.org |
Nah Cappy....I don't get worms or trojans... and I've never had a virus on
any of my computers. The way security is set up I have to approve anything going out or coming in. Plus the important **** is stored on disconnected pony drives and my raid system allows me to hot swap drives.... I've got a complete mirror of my system on an alternate HD. backdoor is so old it needs a walker to get around. CM "Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... Bwahahahahhahahahahhahahahh! You're not too bright, Mooron. You should have gotten a clue from the headers. Backoffice (as in backorifice). It wouldn't surprise me if you got a nasty little worm to contend with now. CN "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:9E6Nd.9587$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$tU6.2772@edtnps91... Nah Cappy....I don't get worms or trojans... and I've never had a virus on any of my computers. The way security is set up I have to approve anything going out or coming in. Plus the important **** is stored on disconnected pony drives and my raid system allows me to hot swap drives.... I've got a complete mirror of my system on an alternate HD. backdoor is so old it needs a walker to get around. CM "Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... Bwahahahahhahahahahhahahahh! You're not too bright, Mooron. You should have gotten a clue from the headers. Backoffice (as in backorifice). It wouldn't surprise me if you got a nasty little worm to contend with now. CN "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:9E6Nd.9587$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$tU6.2772@edtnps91... Nah Cappy....I don't get worms or trojans... and I've never had a virus on any of my computers. The way security is set up I have to approve anything going out or coming in. Plus the important **** is stored on disconnected pony drives and my raid system allows me to hot swap drives.... I've got a complete mirror of my system on an alternate HD. backdoor is so old it needs a walker to get around. CM "Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... Bwahahahahhahahahahhahahahh! You're not too bright, Mooron. You should have gotten a clue from the headers. Backoffice (as in backorifice). It wouldn't surprise me if you got a nasty little worm to contend with now. CN "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:9E6Nd.9587$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 news:oOJNd.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 news:oOJNd.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 in message 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). Nice set-up.... I simply have a complete 80 gig with OS & all programs loaded. All data is saved to the pony drives. They are not connected until I require the files. Then again.. like I said... I've never been infected with a worm or a Trojan... let alone a virus. CM |
It's so funny that the people in this group with the tiniest pea-brains
brag about having the most or biggest hard drives . . . CN "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:uEKNd.11057$K54.5021@edtnps84... "Lonny Bruce" wrote in message All that means is that if you have RAID 0 you won't know which hard drive has been infected, and if you have RAID 1 then both hard drives will be infected. A RAID array does nothing to protect you against worms or viruses, only hard drive failures, and a RAID 0 array won't even protect you against that. In fact a RAID 0 increases the chances that you will have a mechanical failure at some point. My computer is set up with both RAID 0 and RAID 1 (RAID 1+0) so that I get the benefits of boths types of systems. The two hard drives set up in RAID 0 speed up all reading and writing functions, so opening programs takes half the time, writing or reading data takes half the time. Then I have two more hard drives in a RAID 1 array, automatically backing up everything that happens in the RAID 0 array. For a total of 4 120GB hard drives. (240 GB storage capacity, plus a complete backup). Nice set-up.... I simply have a complete 80 gig with OS & all programs loaded. All data is saved to the pony drives. They are not connected until I require the files. Then again.. like I said... I've never been infected with a worm or a Trojan... let alone a virus. CM |
Right. I'm using SATA also. Four 250 gig drives. Two sets of RAID 1. One
mirrored to the second. Does nothing or infections of course, but I run fairly extensive and redundant checks on that stuff. Then, as a final backup scheme, I back up to DVD on a monthly basis. So far, I have three separate HD crashes and never dropped a digit. The only clue that I had that something was wrong was the system became sluggish. When I rebooted, I saw the problem. Now, I've set up alerts to tell me when something critical happens. One could also use a system like Xdrive, but I find it clumsy and slow. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Lonny Bruce" wrote in message news:IoKNd.13047$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 news:oOJNd.22763$uc.20667@trnddc03... I've got a complete mirror of my system on an alternate HD. All that means is that if you have RAID 0 you won't know which hard drive has been infected, and if you have RAID 1 then both hard drives will be infected. A RAID array does nothing to protect you against worms or viruses, only hard drive failures, and a RAID 0 array won't even protect you against that. In fact a RAID 0 increases the chances that you will have a mechanical failure at some point. My computer is set up with both RAID 0 and RAID 1 (RAID 1+0) so that I get the benefits of boths types of systems. The two hard drives set up in RAID 0 speed up all reading and writing functions, so opening programs takes half the time, writing or reading data takes half the time. Then I have two more hard drives in a RAID 1 array, automatically backing up everything that happens in the RAID 0 array. For a total of 4 120GB hard drives. (240 GB storage capacity, plus a complete backup). Lonny But this means that you have four large hard drives always running at 7200 rpm and therefore destined ultimately to all wear out at approximately the same time, so your backup is going to be vulnerable at the same time as the operating disks. To avoid this problem I back up periodically on a USB external hard drive, which on the days I am not using it is disconnected and therefore does not wear. I expect you will point out that the mean time between failures of a modern disk is very long, but it is certainly finite, and if you leave your machine on for long periods the hours soon mount up. |
...or that they can hack into your system!
CM "Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... It's so funny that the people in this group with the tiniest pea-brains brag about having the most or biggest hard drives . . . CN "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:uEKNd.11057$K54.5021@edtnps84... "Lonny Bruce" wrote in message 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). Nice set-up.... I simply have a complete 80 gig with OS & all programs loaded. All data is saved to the pony drives. They are not connected until I require the files. Then again.. like I said... I've never been infected with a worm or a Trojan... let alone a virus. CM |
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$Dc.10231@trnddc06... Agreed. And beyond that, an arguement could be made that with 4 hard drives I am 4 times as likely to experience a hard drive failure. Still, one hard drive will fail before the others will. When it fails, it can be replaced, and the data rebuilt before the next one fails. BTW, I am using 10,000 RPMs and SATA, not PATA, so I enjoy faster transfers, with 8 MB cache, as opposed to 1 MB cache used with most PATA hard drives. With any RAID array, backups are still needed. The best kind are off site, so as to protect against common accidents, such as lightening strikes, fires, etc. Certainly using an external hard drive (which is also what I do with a cute little 2.5" 40 GB USB hard drive) is better than nothing, but off site is the best. Thumb drives are a great invention. Because someone can use it for a backup, at say a work computer, and then put it in their pocket, or their purse, and will leave the premises with the backup. Lonny "Edgar" wrote in message ... Lonny Bruce wrote in message news:oOJNd.22763$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. |
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:11:48 GMT, "Lonny Bruce"
wrote this crap: 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). That's nothing. I'm set up with RAID 9, and I'm upgrading to RAID 12. I have back ups of everything. I even have a clone of myself in a freezer. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
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 |
FYI, there's usually a significant increase in performace just with RAID 1.
I certainly saw that. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Lonny Bruce" wrote in message news:GuLOd.18000$uc.9838@trnddc08... 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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com