What am I doing wrong ??? Or is Adaptec 21610SA just a crappy RAID card ?

flux writes:
I am referring to the implementation of gigabit to the desktop. And you
are right it is not recent. It hasn't happened yet.

Gigabit is real now; even recent laptops come with it built-in.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 06:14:59 GMT, flux wrote:

In article ,
Malcolm Weir wrote:

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 06:25:18 GMT, flux wrote:

In article ,
Malcolm Weir wrote:

Well, my beliefs are based on experience and direct conversations with
disk drive manufacturers.

What are yours based on?

Ditto.

Yet, oddly, your opinions directly contradict those expressed by
Maxtor, Seagate, Hitachi, and Toshiba. So who did you talk to?

Do they?

Yes. So who did you talk to?

[ Snip ]

Given that the above directly contradicts your "point", your idea of
logic is, umm, interesting!

It does indeed support my points. The numbers among today's drives are
really that different. And given that drive failure these days in
general is uncommon and that replacement cost goes down over time as you
indicate above, it makes sense that the reason drive companies give 3
and 5 year warranties are because drives are relatively durable, but the
companies want to upgrade eventually.

*Sigh* you really *are* a complete idiot, aren't you?

What's the service life of the disks, hmm?

No, they probably upgrade.

Or.... can't find the paperwork/remember that they have a warranty...

Don't mean "and"?

No. I meant "or", which is why I wrote it.

But "and" is wrong.

No, it isn't. It's not what I meant, which is why I didn't write it,
you idiot. And you are the twit who brought the idea up!

But "they probably upgrade _and_ can't find the paperwork/remember" is
not intrinsically wrong. It means something different from using the
word "or", but it means something!

So now we've established that you have no clue about elementary
statistics, marketing, storage technology and now the English
language...

So doesn't that make your argument circular?

No. It makes your level comprehension pitiful.

You made the point that people are not taking advantage of warranties;
instead they upgrade. But upgrading involves downtime and that is
costly. That sounds circular.

Only because you're too stupid to understand that once the drive has
failed, there's going to be downtime. The issue, for people with more
of a clue than you, is whether you take advantage of the fact that
you're going to replace a disk anyway to replace it with something
bigger/better/different.

Malc.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 06:07:17 GMT, flux wrote:

In article ,
Malcolm Weir wrote:

Must mean that everyone now has 10G Ethernet at the desktop.

Not at all. Are you too stupid to understand the difference between
SERVER and "desktop"???

Where did I mention server?

Well, let's see: what were you responding to:

Now, has it dawned on you that even the most rudimentary of network
servers has multiple NICs? Why do you think that is? Are server
manufacturers silly?

That's a very recent developlment. Even gigabit is relatively recent.

1999.

Must mean that everyone now has 10G Ethernet at the desktop.

Now, exercise your brain (it's between your ears) and you'll see the
word "servers" on the second line of my paragraph above. You
responded to that, and then tried to make a point about desktops.

Besides, you claimed gigabit was recent. It isn't. You're wrong.
Deal with it.

I am referring to the implementation of gigabit to the desktop.

Which is very very stupid of you, because who the hell cares about the
desktop? The money in storage is in servers, and always has been,
which if you had any experience in this field you'd know.

[ Aside from pure commodity sales, where cost is, as always, king ].

And you
are right it is not recent. It hasn't happened yet.

Gigabit to the desktop?

You want to tell that to people like Dell, because they seem to think
it worthwhile putting gigabit on their entry level Precision desktop!
Heck, even some of Dell's laptops have gigabit adapters!

Where *hard* problems are, at least for those of us in
comp.arch.storage, it is assumed that the network problem is already
solved. Need 10GB/sec of network bandwidth and don't have a 10G
Ethernet? Simply trunk 10 1000BaseT nets to your switch! Cisco (and
the like) can handle that part of the problem.

Again, this sounds very rare.

Yet it isn't. Gosh. Could it be that you are ignorant of what you
write?

Ditto.

However, the answer is that *I* am not. You, though, appear to be.

Logic?

You make claims that are false, naive, and fail to provide anything to
substantiate your claims. And you clearly don't understand high-end
storage issues, and didn't know that file serving is the least
valuable part of data storage.

You act like a gamer playing with networks.

Me, I architect multi-terabyte HSMs.

Malc.

flux wrote:

In article ,
Malcolm Weir wrote:

Must mean that everyone now has 10G Ethernet at the desktop.

Not at all. Are you too stupid to understand the difference between
SERVER and "desktop"???

Where did I mention server?

Besides, you claimed gigabit was recent. It isn't. You're wrong.
Deal with it.

I am referring to the implementation of gigabit to the desktop. And you
are right it is not recent. It hasn't happened yet.

If you mean that it isn't universal, ten meg to the desktop "hasn't happened
yet". If you look on the shelves at CompUSA you'll see that the price
difference between 1000baseT and 100baseTX is small and decreasing. This
time next year look for 1000baseT to be pushing 100baseTX off the shelves.

Businesses aren't going to upgrade their hardware from 100baseTX to
1000baseT until they perceive a need to do so, which they generally don't
for desktop use at this time. However with more and more desktops being
1000baseT enabled out of the box (it's built into many of the latest
chipsets--system designers don't have a choice other than to not hook a
connector to the pins on the chip) it's only a matter of time before they
upgrade their switches.

It's all kind of pointless though--generally speaking desktop machines don't
see enough loading to tax even 100TX--it's servers that have the need for
high transfer rates in order to satisfy multiple clients.

Where *hard* problems are, at least for those of us in
comp.arch.storage, it is assumed that the network problem is
already
solved. Need 10GB/sec of network bandwidth and don't have a 10G
Ethernet? Simply trunk 10 1000BaseT nets to your switch! Cisco
(and the like) can handle that part of the problem.

Again, this sounds very rare.

Yet it isn't. Gosh. Could it be that you are ignorant of what you
write?

Ditto.

However, the answer is that *I* am not. You, though, appear to be.

Logic?

Well, you've said enough things that display collossal ignorance that it's
intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Malcolm Weir wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 06:07:17 GMT, flux wrote:

In article ,
Malcolm Weir wrote:

Must mean that everyone now has 10G Ethernet at the desktop.

Not at all. Are you too stupid to understand the difference between
SERVER and "desktop"???

Where did I mention server?

Well, let's see: what were you responding to:

Now, has it dawned on you that even the most rudimentary of network
servers has multiple NICs? Why do you think that is? Are server
manufacturers silly?

That's a very recent developlment. Even gigabit is relatively recent.

1999.

Must mean that everyone now has 10G Ethernet at the desktop.

Now, exercise your brain (it's between your ears) and you'll see the
word "servers" on the second line of my paragraph above. You
responded to that, and then tried to make a point about desktops.

Besides, you claimed gigabit was recent. It isn't. You're wrong.
Deal with it.

I am referring to the implementation of gigabit to the desktop.

Which is very very stupid of you, because who the hell cares about the
desktop? The money in storage is in servers, and always has been,
which if you had any experience in this field you'd know.

[ Aside from pure commodity sales, where cost is, as always, king ].

And you
are right it is not recent. It hasn't happened yet.

Gigabit to the desktop?

You want to tell that to people like Dell, because they seem to think
it worthwhile putting gigabit on their entry level Precision desktop!
Heck, even some of Dell's laptops have gigabit adapters!

In fairness, since gigabit is included in most current chipsets, they're
just going with the flow. Doesn't have anything to do with their
perception of need, it has to do with Intel's perception that they can move
more of their switch and router chipsets by adding a minuscule additional
amount of silicon to their desktop chipsets.

Where *hard* problems are, at least for those of us in
comp.arch.storage, it is assumed that the network problem is
already
solved. Need 10GB/sec of network bandwidth and don't have a 10G
Ethernet? Simply trunk 10 1000BaseT nets to your switch! Cisco
(and the like) can handle that part of the problem.

Again, this sounds very rare.

Yet it isn't. Gosh. Could it be that you are ignorant of what you
write?

Ditto.

However, the answer is that *I* am not. You, though, appear to be.

Logic?

You make claims that are false, naive, and fail to provide anything to
substantiate your claims. And you clearly don't understand high-end
storage issues, and didn't know that file serving is the least
valuable part of data storage.

You act like a gamer playing with networks.

Me, I architect multi-terabyte HSMs.

Malc.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
Malcolm Weir wrote:

Yet, oddly, your opinions directly contradict those expressed by
Maxtor, Seagate, Hitachi, and Toshiba. So who did you talk to?

Do they?

Yes. So who did you talk to?

Maxtor and Western Digital, plus a few RAID manufacturers.

[ Snip ]

Given that the above directly contradicts your "point", your idea of
logic is, umm, interesting!

It does indeed support my points. The numbers among today's drives are
really that different. And given that drive failure these days in
general is uncommon and that replacement cost goes down over time as you
indicate above, it makes sense that the reason drive companies give 3
and 5 year warranties are because drives are relatively durable, but the
companies want to upgrade eventually.

*Sigh* you really *are* a complete idiot, aren't you?

Hmm, the sentence "The numbers among today's drives are really that
different" should really have said "The numbers among today's drives are
not really that different"

No, they probably upgrade.

Or.... can't find the paperwork/remember that they have a warranty...

Don't mean "and"?

No. I meant "or", which is why I wrote it.

But "and" is wrong.

No, it isn't. It's not what I meant, which is why I didn't write it,

It is what I meant.

Only because you're too stupid to understand that once the drive has
failed, there's going to be downtime. The issue, for people with more
of a clue than you, is whether you take advantage of the fact that

Sounds like a cat chasing its own tail.

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

However, the answer is that *I* am not. You, though, appear to be.

Logic?

Well, you've said enough things that display collossal ignorance that it's
intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

Agreed.

In article ,
Malcolm Weir wrote:

Well, let's see: what were you responding to:

Now, has it dawned on you that even the most rudimentary of network
servers has multiple NICs? Why do you think that is? Are server
manufacturers silly?

That's a very recent developlment. Even gigabit is relatively recent.

But my points above are still correct.

You want to tell that to people like Dell, because they seem to think
it worthwhile putting gigabit on their entry level Precision desktop!
Heck, even some of Dell's laptops have gigabit adapters!

This supports my assertion that gigabit is relatively recent.

You make claims that are false, naive, and fail to provide anything to
substantiate your claims. And you clearly don't understand high-end

I take it the above is the evidence for your claims.

Me, I architect multi-terabyte HSMs.

I didn't know they were so complex that to require an "architect".

flux wrote:

In article ,
Malcolm Weir wrote:

Well, let's see: what were you responding to:

Now, has it dawned on you that even the most rudimentary of network
servers has multiple NICs? Why do you think that is? Are server
manufacturers silly?

That's a very recent developlment. Even gigabit is relatively recent.

But my points above are still correct.

You want to tell that to people like Dell, because they seem to think
it worthwhile putting gigabit on their entry level Precision desktop!
Heck, even some of Dell's laptops have gigabit adapters!

This supports my assertion that gigabit is relatively recent.

How? By that reasoning keyboards are "relatively recent" because Dell's
laptops have them.

You make claims that are false, naive, and fail to provide anything to
substantiate your claims. And you clearly don't understand high-end

I take it the above is the evidence for your claims.

Me, I architect multi-terabyte HSMs.

I didn't know they were so complex that to require an "architect".

Well, dude, you design one and see how you make out.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Maxim S. Shatskih" wrote in news:coq0t2$rs7$1
@gavrilo.mtu.ru:

No, this only means that each year 1 of 136 disks will fail

Your calculations just don't match the real world, but what the hell

Out of 2200 or so 146GB FC drives, we replace 2-5 every week. This is quite
a bit more than your one-in-136 a year.

--
/Jesper Monsted