Jump to content

Drak3

Member
  • Posts

    10,557
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards

This user doesn't have any awards

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Somewhere in Galar
  • Member title
    Eevee Army

System

  • CPU
    5930K @4GHz
  • Motherboard
    X99A Gaming Pro Carbon//BIOS 1.3
  • RAM
    32GB Vengeance RGB Pro+ 32GB Vengeance LPX
  • GPU
    GTX 1080/RX580 8GB
  • Case
    Praxis Wetbench
  • Storage
    950 Pro/850 Evo/860 Evo/Sandisk Ultra II
  • PSU
    RM1000x
  • Display(s)
    ASUS MX279H/Samsung CF591/ Acer Predator XB271HU
  • Cooling
    H100i V2
  • Keyboard
    K95 Platinum
  • Mouse
    MX Master/ Scimitar Pro
  • Operating System
    Windows 10

Recent Profile Visitors

23,010 profile views
  1. Hardware wise, The Trashcan pro had server grade hardware. It takes a unique rack mount system to use them as rack mount servers, but the hardware was there.
  2. The old OSX Server variant has been replaced by an optional software package that gives 10.8 and up versions of OSX the same utilities. So, instead of having a different OS, where the only difference is a software package, they just give you the software package.
  3. Xbox Xbox 360 Xbox One Xbox One X Xbox 10 Someone really needs to tech Bill how to count. /s
  4. Not really. The typical consumer doesn't know what benchmarks or IPC is, the only metric they know about is clockspeed. And Intel advertises their product to typical consumers, AMD doesn't. That alone guarantees that Intel's new line of CPUs are going to sell somewhat well.
  5. Yup, and they’re making custom ones for Apple now too. Nvidia also made dual GPU cards years ago.
  6. It’s not a huge difference. Basically the same difference between a FourTwo and a Peterbilt.
  7. IIRC, JayzTwoCents demonstrated that the whole AiO v high end air cooler debate really hinges on what ambient temperatures are like. AiO tend to outperform high end air coolers in hotter environments, even if the opposite is true in cooler environments.
  8. None of that conflicts with the statement that RAID 1 is a type of backup. It just explains why RAID 1 isn’t a comprehensive backup.
  9. Argumentum Ad Populum. You haven't presented a counterpoint as to why RAID 1 doesn't fit the definition of backup. You just summarized what I said: RAID 1 only covers data loss that would result from a disk failure.
  10. So, fitting the definition of backup. Yes, it is. No backup is truly safe from damage in some form. I thought you knew that, considering how concerned you are with house fires, and how you spoke down upon another member when they bought a firesafe to store an external drive. No, there isn't. Some backup systems are just multiple duplicates of of the drive, sometimes not even on a separate disk (meaning partitions, which is fine for basic safe guarding against corruption). No raid will protect you against accidental loss or corruption and it's questionable if it will even save you from corrupted files. RAID protects against loss from drive failures, meaning that still fits that definition. It is literally a copy of a drive to protect against the failure of said drive. No, I'm not. I'm taking a word, and using it for its actual definitions. The ACTUAL definitions presented don't contradict what I said. Because those people haven't given a counterargument to the actual definitions. You evade or dismiss outright the definition. And this is why I separate Mira as being one of the smartest members of the forum. From the get go, they acknowledged that they had their own concept of what a backup was, and didn't treat it as absolute. After some discussion, they acknowledged that there is a distinction to be made between types of backups, that you can have backups for hardware and backups for data, and that RAID doesn't really handle the task of data backup. Mira 'listened' to those with different viewpoints, considered them, and adjusted their own accordingly. Whereas multiple people have been shown the actual definition, how this type of backup is used, and ignore it. As far as I'm concerned, you'd rather try to hide behind """expert""" opinion pieces and trying to frame the discussion as "semantics," than do any critical thinking.
  11. That would be a type of backup. You have dedicated a set of drives to being local and live backups of each other. That's true of any backup system. NAS and versioned libraries are not failsafe either. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/backup These are the two relevant definitions. A drive failure results in the practical data loss of that drive. RAID 1 is a mirror arrangement where the purpose is that data is not lost if a drive fails. By both definitions, RAID 1 is a form of backup. A scenario specific backup. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redundant And here's the most applicable definition of redundant. Any backup exists as duplicate data to get a system running again. Different types of backups do so in different capacities. RAID 1 enables a system to be restored with little downtime in the event of a drive failure. That's what it's good for, that's what it should be used for. It's redundant, as every backup system is, by definition.
  12. How about reading all of my comments? Hell, read the one before the last one I made: I have acknowledged, time and time again, that RAID 1 is not a comprehensive backup. I've said that RAID 1 is only useful as a basic backup for drive failure and nothing more. And I don't give a shit about the specifics of your company's backup system. It's irrelevant. It doesn't counter anything I've said. It doesn't build on the argument. As far as I'm concerned, it's nothing more than a weak appeal to authority to weasel your way out.
  13. I don't run RAID. Nor is that the type of system failure RAID 1 covers. It's a backup system that covers a disk failure. I've said that, multiple times.
  14. Seeing as solder is used as a thermal interface material, yes. Except that for the vast majority of tasks, the FX lineup couldn't compete with Intel chips' performance. Whereas Intel's 8 cores and AMD's 8 cores are pretty close to each other. And, unlike AMD, Intel has a large enough bank account that they can advertise to the masses, who don't know how to compare CPUs outside of GHz.
×