2 posts • joined Tuesday 6th March 2012 09:30 GMT
Re: "RAID 5 or 6"
Some interesting calculations going on there!
Pretty sure 4 x 1TB drives in RAID10 gives 2TB of usable space, not 1TB :)
Also RAID6 is better on redundancy than RAID10 as ANY two disks can fail in RAID 6 (due to distributed parity) however in RAID10 it depends:
Remember that RAID10 is just mirrored arrays (RAID1) inside a striped array (RAID0) if two disks fail from the separate mirrors, no biggie, the array can be rebuilt. If both disks are from the same mirror, you've lost all your data! (How often do two disks fail at the same time for small arrays like this anyway? And how unlucky would you have to be for both of them to be in the same mirrored array?!)
But for the performance you get over either of the other implementations it might be worth the lost in capacity of both and redundancy of RAID6 (especially if you add further RAID1 levels within the RAID0 array - 3 RAID1 arrays would mean [almost] 3x the performance of a single disk!).
Re: Lefty righty
Obviously the previous posters missed your point. Yes you are right, all this fuss about half resolution (and yes, it is 540 lines per eye) is complete drivel.
True, each eye only gets 540 lines but the key is that they are displayed at the same time, so at any one point in time you are still seeing 1080 lines (just like active shutter).
The real downfall with passive compared to active is that if you sit a bit too close you can see the affect of the film polariser on the screen and see the interlace structure - try closing one eye and you'll get what I mean. At reasonable viewing distances though (I'm talking over about 5 feet from a 50" screen) you can't see it at all.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system
- Peak Facebook: British users lose their Liking for Zuck's ad empire