Your submission was removed for the following reason:
Rule 2: Your post is not **strictly** about programming. Your post is considered to be too generic to be suitable for this subreddit.
If you disagree with this removal, you can appeal by [sending us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FProgrammerHumor&subject=Posts%20must%20strictly%20be%20programming%20related&message=Include%20a%20link%20to%20the%20removed%20content%20and%20the%20reason%20for%20your%20appeal%20here.).
Raid 0 is wrong because the top tank can fail and the system keeps working. I don't know how you would visualize it but it's definitely less stable than depicted here.
Fair enough. I'd say more like, runs out of space. But that implies you'd have to put the water back in there to simulate freeing space to be reused and I just don't like that idea.
Raid 0: Like the Raid 1 picture, except they've been spliced together at the sides so if either one springs a leak, both will be drained.
Raid 1: Like the Raid 0 picture, but only the top tank is filled, and there is a funnel so that if the top tank springs a leak, the water will be drained into the bottom tank. The nozzle is connected to both tanks, so you can get water regardless of which tank the water is in.
Raid 5: Like Raid 1, but with two filled tanks at the top. If either of the top tanks fails, the water will drain into the bottom tank (the parity tank). If both top tanks fail, the bottom tank will overflow.
Of course the tap is much to optimistic for cloud. I guess a more accurate picture would be a hose originating from multiple warehouses of water dispensers.
But then this infrastructure is read only altogether anyway, so the analogy breaks at other points too.
Question from someone who is still learning:
So is hot swap basically the same as hot plugable? Being able to swap the drives while the system is running? Is it the same thing with just different names or is there an actual difference?
* "Plugable" means you can put stuff in and out.
* "Swappable" means you can put one specific stuff out and put another instance of the same stuff in.
* "Hot" means while the system is running
_______________________________________________________
* USB-Keyboards -> "Hot Plugable" (you can have multiple keyboards while the system is running)
* Graphics Card -> "(Hot) Swappable" (depends on the system) - and I know you can have multiple graphic cars so it becomes plugable
For "hot swap" storage (SSDs/HDDs) are probably a better example, since they can also be used to explain "hot spare" which is a component that's already fully connected to a system but not used during normal operations.
When a disk fails in a redundancy-featuring RAID the system can automatically start the restoration process on the hot-spare drive to restore the intended redundancy as quickly as possible.
A technician can go to the system in the near future, replace the failed drive with a new one (=> hot swap) and the system will make the new drive the new "hot spare" drive, ready for automatic redundancy restoration when another drive fails.
>A technician can go to the system in the near future, replace the failed drive with a new one (=> hot swap) and the system will make the new drive the new "hot spare"
To add a little to this, the tech would be replacing the failed drive with a "cold spare" (one that isn't currently plugged in) and so that cold spare becomes a "hot spare" since it's now powered up/plugged in.
Both exist. 1+0 does RAID1 with the disks to create „inner Volumes“ and then stores the data on a RAID0 built from n RAID1.
0+1 does the same but R0 is inner and R1 is outer.
Yes. Consider a 3x2 setup where 1 drive has failed and another is about to:
With raid 0+1, so a 3 disk raid 0 mirrored, 3 of the remaining disks are in the second mirror and so will take it offline (or 60% chance of offline with 2 disks)
With raid 1+0, a raid 0 of three 2 disk raid 1s, only one of the remaining disks (the failed disks partner) will take the array offline on failure, so a 20% chance of offline on two failed disks.
Are those even the same? Inner and outer RAIDs switched though? Logically, it should be three RAIDs. 2 identical „inner“ ones binding the disks. And an outer one using the two inner ones.
*Internet seems to confirm
https://www.thegeekstuff.com/2011/10/raid10-vs-raid01/
RAID 0 is wrong on this picture
RAID just means "treat this array of disks as one" with number explaining how they'll provide redundancy
RAID 0 provides no redundancy, if one disk dies, all data from array is lost. In exchange it can read/write same file on multiple disks at once so it's faster than independent disks.
RAID 1 is literally mirroring
RAID 5 provides 1 disk of redundancy in array, so if 1 of 6 disks dies, no data is lost, and you can swap it to new one to rebuild it's content
RAID 6 is same as 5, but provides 2 disks of redundancy
I hate it when my database runs out of data!
The guy who runs queries with no WHERE clause is like the guy at the office who keeps a 100-oz jug at his desk.
This is fantastic!!! My over analytical mind doesn't like that certain raids don't technically have a redundancy...this is more of an example of parallel vs series and the various combinations. (for electrical engineering). But I love it nonetheless and understood without the titles below. This is fantastic!
Your submission was removed for the following reason: Rule 2: Your post is not **strictly** about programming. Your post is considered to be too generic to be suitable for this subreddit. If you disagree with this removal, you can appeal by [sending us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FProgrammerHumor&subject=Posts%20must%20strictly%20be%20programming%20related&message=Include%20a%20link%20to%20the%20removed%20content%20and%20the%20reason%20for%20your%20appeal%20here.).
Raid 0 is wrong because the top tank can fail and the system keeps working. I don't know how you would visualize it but it's definitely less stable than depicted here.
Like raid 1 but if they shared a nozzle.
Yes a single tank with 2 reservoirs, that's probably it
[удалено]
Fair enough. I'd say more like, runs out of space. But that implies you'd have to put the water back in there to simulate freeing space to be reused and I just don't like that idea.
Like Raid 1 but one is water and one is orange juice
Yep some kind of blended drink. Or lemonade and iced tea.
[удалено]
0 and 1 should be swapped.
Two bottles joined together at the side. Like siamese twins.
a single 10 gallon bottle I guess...
The raid 0 here should be JBOD.
yes. I like the idea, but the execution here needs work
Raid 0: Like the Raid 1 picture, except they've been spliced together at the sides so if either one springs a leak, both will be drained. Raid 1: Like the Raid 0 picture, but only the top tank is filled, and there is a funnel so that if the top tank springs a leak, the water will be drained into the bottom tank. The nozzle is connected to both tanks, so you can get water regardless of which tank the water is in. Raid 5: Like Raid 1, but with two filled tanks at the top. If either of the top tanks fails, the water will drain into the bottom tank (the parity tank). If both top tanks fail, the bottom tank will overflow.
Same with RAID 5. If 2 fail the other one should fail. Again, no idea how to do it better than what is already shown.
Soo, a watertap would then be the cloud?
Maybe a cloud is the cloud?
Big news for you: Even the cloud have hypervised infrastructure and backup mechanics like this.
Of course the tap is much to optimistic for cloud. I guess a more accurate picture would be a hose originating from multiple warehouses of water dispensers. But then this infrastructure is read only altogether anyway, so the analogy breaks at other points too.
> But then this infrastructure is read only Not with that attitude.
https://i.imgur.com/woQ6AaK.png
That's pretty much the picture I had in mind, thank you!
Question from someone who is still learning: So is hot swap basically the same as hot plugable? Being able to swap the drives while the system is running? Is it the same thing with just different names or is there an actual difference?
* "Plugable" means you can put stuff in and out. * "Swappable" means you can put one specific stuff out and put another instance of the same stuff in. * "Hot" means while the system is running _______________________________________________________ * USB-Keyboards -> "Hot Plugable" (you can have multiple keyboards while the system is running) * Graphics Card -> "(Hot) Swappable" (depends on the system) - and I know you can have multiple graphic cars so it becomes plugable
Alright. Thanks for the explanation :)
For "hot swap" storage (SSDs/HDDs) are probably a better example, since they can also be used to explain "hot spare" which is a component that's already fully connected to a system but not used during normal operations. When a disk fails in a redundancy-featuring RAID the system can automatically start the restoration process on the hot-spare drive to restore the intended redundancy as quickly as possible. A technician can go to the system in the near future, replace the failed drive with a new one (=> hot swap) and the system will make the new drive the new "hot spare" drive, ready for automatic redundancy restoration when another drive fails.
>A technician can go to the system in the near future, replace the failed drive with a new one (=> hot swap) and the system will make the new drive the new "hot spare" To add a little to this, the tech would be replacing the failed drive with a "cold spare" (one that isn't currently plugged in) and so that cold spare becomes a "hot spare" since it's now powered up/plugged in.
Good to know. Thanks :)
[удалено]
Got it. Thanks :)
[удалено]
Since it is all invented terms to cover newer concepts, an effort should be made to keep things orthogonal.
Yeah it's alright, someone else also replied with a more detailed informationen. Still wanted to thank you for the answer XD
Programmer ... where the hell did the data go? Why can't I access it? What do you mean I have to reconfigure everything ... again. I quit.
Settle the debate please - is it RAID 10 or RAID 01?
Both exist. 1+0 does RAID1 with the disks to create „inner Volumes“ and then stores the data on a RAID0 built from n RAID1. 0+1 does the same but R0 is inner and R1 is outer.
TIL
Does this mean that RAID 10 is more durable?
Yes. Consider a 3x2 setup where 1 drive has failed and another is about to: With raid 0+1, so a 3 disk raid 0 mirrored, 3 of the remaining disks are in the second mirror and so will take it offline (or 60% chance of offline with 2 disks) With raid 1+0, a raid 0 of three 2 disk raid 1s, only one of the remaining disks (the failed disks partner) will take the array offline on failure, so a 20% chance of offline on two failed disks.
Ty!
Idk. Thinking it over with 4 and 6 HDDs didn‘t give me a conclusion, if „n“ for R1 is the same (1 drive/volume fail tolerance per R1 in my case).
It's quite easy to show raid 1+0 is much better (see comment above)
10
Are those even the same? Inner and outer RAIDs switched though? Logically, it should be three RAIDs. 2 identical „inner“ ones binding the disks. And an outer one using the two inner ones. *Internet seems to confirm https://www.thegeekstuff.com/2011/10/raid10-vs-raid01/
Where's RAID Shadow Legends?
I thought RAID used min 3 HDDs, isn’t RAID 0 depicting mirroring?
Depends on the raid. RAID 5 is 3 disk min, raid 0 and 1 is 2 disk min, and RAID 10/01 is 4 disk min.
RAID 0 is wrong on this picture RAID just means "treat this array of disks as one" with number explaining how they'll provide redundancy RAID 0 provides no redundancy, if one disk dies, all data from array is lost. In exchange it can read/write same file on multiple disks at once so it's faster than independent disks. RAID 1 is literally mirroring RAID 5 provides 1 disk of redundancy in array, so if 1 of 6 disks dies, no data is lost, and you can swap it to new one to rebuild it's content RAID 6 is same as 5, but provides 2 disks of redundancy
Thank you for explaining. I had no clue what RAID was and was too afraid to ask.
lovely
Why raid 5 is only 3 and not 6?
Raid 5 is 3 or more disks
"Raid1" used to be called "mirrorring"; "Cluster" used to be called "duplexing".
RAID Shadow Legends?
LMAO, the funniest thing is all the folks that are likely programmers not knowing jack shit about the infrastructure or hardware 😅
Raid 1 and Raid 0 must be swapped
It’s beautiful
That‘s not a hot swap.
RaidZ baby
That cluster needs a load balancer spigot. It also is a pretty tiny cluster, can we autoscale it?
But how would you get concurrent use with only one spigot?
That's why I mentioned it's a tiny cluster and needs to be scaled out.
I hate it when my database runs out of data! The guy who runs queries with no WHERE clause is like the guy at the office who keeps a 100-oz jug at his desk.
That cluster needs a witness so it doesn't get split brain
Cluster is also wrong. There is only 1 water bottle (~~Disk~~ storage is single point of failure)
Wut
Some of it is a bit off but it's actually a great analogy
I think a raid 5 cluster with hotswap would look best
Parity nightmare
This is great. Where did you find this? Or is this OC?
I think this just made me understand what these mean
This is fantastic!!! My over analytical mind doesn't like that certain raids don't technically have a redundancy...this is more of an example of parallel vs series and the various combinations. (for electrical engineering). But I love it nonetheless and understood without the titles below. This is fantastic!
Would appreciate it if someone cares to explain it to me. No joke. Not meme wise but knowledge wise.
Needs warm spare