<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Jonathan Mills &#187; Mac Hardware</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.jonmills.org/category/all-things-macintosh/mac-hardware/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.jonmills.org</link>
	<description>please, don't call it a blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 04:22:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Using RAID 10 on Mac OS X</title>
		<link>http://www.jonmills.org/2009/05/27/using-raid-10-on-mac-os-x/</link>
		<comments>http://www.jonmills.org/2009/05/27/using-raid-10-on-mac-os-x/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 04:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jonmills</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mac Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mac OS X]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jonmills.org/?p=179</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Now that your raid set is hosed, feel free to experiment with new things.  Like a hybrid raid that uses a software RAID 0 to stripe across two hardware RAID 1 mirrors.
First, boot off your Mac OS X install DVD.  Open RAID Utility.  Use it to create two mirrors.  Something like [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now that your raid set is hosed, feel free to experiment with new things.  Like a hybrid raid that uses a software RAID 0 to stripe across two hardware RAID 1 mirrors.</p>
<p>First, boot off your Mac OS X install DVD.  Open RAID Utility.  Use it to create two mirrors.  Something like this:</p>
<div style="text-align:center;"><img src="http://www.jonmills.org/wordpress/../uploads/2009/05/picture-1.png" alt="Picture 1.png" border="0" width="469" height="352" /></div>
<p>Then, open Disk Utility and play with its software raid features until you make it stripe across those two mirrored volumes you just set up.  Like this:</p>
<div style="text-align:center;"><img src="http://www.jonmills.org/wordpress/../uploads/2009/05/picture-2.png" alt="Picture 2.png" border="0" width="459" height="292" /></div>
<p>Now install Mac OS X on your new, hybrid, RAID 10, that can handle up to two disk failures (if they aren&#8217;t in the same mirror), and doesn&#8217;t become degraded in a disk failure scenario, and has very fast rebuild times.  win-win-win.</p>
<p>Now, to go out and buy a big external drive to run Time Machine with&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jonmills.org/2009/05/27/using-raid-10-on-mac-os-x/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NEVER USE RAID 5.  EVER.</title>
		<link>http://www.jonmills.org/2009/05/27/never-use-raid-5-ever/</link>
		<comments>http://www.jonmills.org/2009/05/27/never-use-raid-5-ever/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 04:11:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jonmills</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mac Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mac OS X]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jonmills.org/?p=175</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So, over a year ago I bought a Mac Pro with the Apple RAID Card.  I was really disappointed to find that it didn&#8217;t support RAID 10, which is a form of nested raid whereby a RAID 0 (a stripe) is laid across two or more RAID 1&#8217;s (disk mirrors).  Apple&#8217;s implementation allowed [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, over a year ago I bought a Mac Pro with the Apple RAID Card.  I was really disappointed to find that it didn&#8217;t support RAID 10, which is a form of nested raid whereby a RAID 0 (a stripe) is laid across two or more RAID 1&#8217;s (disk mirrors).  Apple&#8217;s implementation allowed for RAID 0+1, which is the other way around:  a mirror of two stripe sets usually.  That is a much inferior setup, because if any single disk fails, then both disks in that striped pair are out &#8212; meaning half your mirror is down.  In a RAID 10, you can lose a disk without penalty.  You can even lose two disks as long as they aren&#8217;t on the same side of the stripe (i.e. aren&#8217;t both in the same mirrored pair) &#8212; again, without penalty.</p>
<p>In light of Apple&#8217;s foolish RAID 0+1 option on their raid card, I opted for RAID 5 instead.  Against my better judgement.  But with faith in Apple.  AND IT FAILED.  I lost one disk last week.  I promptly shut down my machine in an orderly fashion (because SATA isn&#8217;t hot-swappable; only SAS can do that in a Mac Pro).  I replaced the failed disk with an identical cold spare that I had on hand (holla).  I booted up, I started the RAID Utility program, I marked the new disk a hot spare, the Utility added it back into my raid set and began rebuilding the array, which, of course, was in a degraded state.  The rebuild finished &#8212; all lights were green &#8212; the RAID Utility told me that my RAID 5 set was &#8220;Viable (Good)&#8221;.  Viola!  Right?</p>
<p>Wrong.  I rebooted the machine and it never came back up!  I booted off the Mac OS X DVD and verified the volume in Disk Utility.  Fail.  Inaccurate record count.  Unable to mount the volume.  I re-open the RAID Utility and attempt a VERIFY procedure on the raid set.  Fail.  It won&#8217;t even start the routine.</p>
<p>In the end, I lost the entire 1.2 TB RAID 5, with about 600 gigs of my precious data on it.  I had backups of all the most recent things, but lost some music, and quite a lot of movies I&#8217;d ripped from NetFlix DVD&#8217;s and &#8212; because of their size mainly &#8212; hadn&#8217;t backed-up onto my too-small external drive.  Yeaaaah.  *sigh*</p>
<p>Thanks, Apple.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jonmills.org/2009/05/27/never-use-raid-5-ever/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>iPhone 2.0 Worldwide Launch on June 9th</title>
		<link>http://www.jonmills.org/2008/05/21/iphone-20-worldwide-launch-on-june-9th/</link>
		<comments>http://www.jonmills.org/2008/05/21/iphone-20-worldwide-launch-on-june-9th/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 05:40:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jonmills</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mac Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPhone]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jonmills.org/2008/05/21/iphone-20-worldwide-launch-on-june-9th/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[iPhone 2.0 Worldwide Launch on June 9th &#124; Gadget Lab from Wired.com: 

 A June 9 launch date for the iPhone 2? No surprises there, and now it looks like inside sources are confirming the June 9 date, which is also when Steve Jobs&#8217; keynote at Apple&#8217;s Worldwide Developers Conference is scheduled.
But Gizmodo&#8217;s Jesus Diaz [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/05/iphone-20-world.html">iPhone 2.0 Worldwide Launch on June 9th | Gadget Lab from Wired.com</a>: </p>
<p>
 A June 9 launch date for the iPhone 2? No surprises there, and now it looks like inside sources are confirming the June 9 date, which is also when Steve Jobs&#8217; keynote at Apple&#8217;s Worldwide Developers Conference is scheduled.<br />
But Gizmodo&#8217;s Jesus Diaz has got wind of the details of the launch, and his source tells him that the Second Coming will be a worldwide event &#8212; not just in the United States. He also claims that his snitch, &#8220;someone very, very close to the 3-G iPhone launch&#8221;, says that the current fixed pricing model will be discontinued in favor of a more Euro-friendly flexible price point, one that can shift subject to the markets and the whims of the telcos.<br />
The last point concerns Spain. As we reported this morning, Telef&oacute;nica will indeed carry the iPhone, and will be launching it along with its brand new Madrid megastore on June 18.</p>
<p>Via <a href="http://www.wired.com">Wired.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jonmills.org/2008/05/21/iphone-20-worldwide-launch-on-june-9th/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mac Pro RAID Card not all that &#8216;Pro&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.jonmills.org/2008/03/07/mac-pro-raid-card-not-all-that-pro/</link>
		<comments>http://www.jonmills.org/2008/03/07/mac-pro-raid-card-not-all-that-pro/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:52:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jonmills</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mac Hardware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jonmills.org/2008/03/07/mac-pro-raid-card-not-all-that-pro/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Does RAID 0+1 instead of RAID 10.  Really? Seriously?
  I was contemplating ordering one of these with a Mac Pro because I wanted to use it in RAID 10.  RAID 10 is a stripe (RAID 0) across two or more mirrored pairs (RAID 1).  Conversely, RAID 0+1 is a mirror across [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h3>Does RAID 0+1 instead of RAID 10.  Really? Seriously?</h3>
<p><a href="http://www.apple.com/macpro/technology/storage.html"><img src="http://www.jonmills.org/wordpress/../uploads/2008/03/btoimage-raid-macpro.gif" alt="btoimage_raid_macpro.gif" border="0" width="100" height="85" align="right" /></a>  I was contemplating ordering one of these with a Mac Pro because I wanted to use it in RAID 10.  RAID 10 is a stripe (RAID 0) across two or more mirrored pairs (RAID 1).  Conversely, RAID 0+1 is a mirror across two or more striped pairs.  But as the <a href="http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/RAID_Utility_User_Guide.pdf">manual</a> clearly states, it doesn&#8217;t do RAID 10.  It does RAID 0+1, and that&#8217;s not so good.<br />&nbsp;<br />
<a href="http://aput.net/~jheiss/raid10/">There are dramatic differences between these two configurations:</a></p>
<ul>
<li>Chances of array failure:<br />
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Mathematically, the difference is that the chance of system failure with two drive failures in a RAID 0+1 system with two sets of drives is (n/2)/(n &#8211; 1) where n is the total number of drives in the system. The chance of system failure in a RAID 1+0 system with two drives per mirror is 1/(n &#8211; 1). So, using the 8 drive systems shown in the diagrams, the chance that losing a second drive would bring down the RAID system is 4/7 with a RAID 0+1 system and 1/7 with a RAID 1+0 system.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<li>Performance in degraded state:<br />
<blockquote><p>Another difference between the two RAID configurations is performance when the system is in a degraded state, i.e. after it has lost one or more drives but has not lost the right combination of drives to completely fail. In a RAID 0+1 configuration, the loss of any drive in a set causes the failure of that entire set and the set is removed from the RAID system. Generally (in the two set case) this means you are left with a RAID 0 system made up of the remaining set of disks. This probably slightly improves write performance and slightly degrades read performance (but that&#8217;s just a WAG, I haven&#8217;t done any testing). In a RAID 1+0 system, you would see the same effect on each mirror that loses a drive, but not the whole system. In other words, a RAID 1+0 configuration will tend to show similar, but less dramatic, changes in performance when in a degraded mode than RAID 0+1.</p></blockquote>
<li>Recovery once a disk is replaced:<br />
<blockquote><p>RAID 1+0 only has to re-mirror one drive, whereas RAID 0+1 has to re-mirror the entire failed set. So RAID 1+0 will recover significantly faster.</p></blockquote>
</ul>
<p>Given these pretty significant failings of RAID 0+1 as compared to RAID 10, it&#8217;s a pretty good question as to why Apple would choose the much poorer option for its &#8216;Pro&#8217; RAID card, <em>for which it charges $720</em>.  I&#8217;m just really left scratching my head.</p>
<p>Shame on you Apple, shame!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jonmills.org/2008/03/07/mac-pro-raid-card-not-all-that-pro/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Time Capsule teardown</title>
		<link>http://www.jonmills.org/2008/03/01/time-capsule-teardown/</link>
		<comments>http://www.jonmills.org/2008/03/01/time-capsule-teardown/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:23:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jonmills</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mac Hardware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jonmills.org/2008/03/01/time-capsule-teardown/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Time Capsule teardown:
Filed under: Wireless, Apple
Apple&#8217;s Time Capsule hasn&#8217;t even been shipping for a week yet, and Flickr user &#8220;nakedmac&#8221; has already dissected his Time Capsule. What may be surprising is that the Time Capsule is no more than an Airport Extreme with a hard drive. But remember when Steve said that the Time Capsule [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.tuaw.com/2008/03/01/time-capsule-teardown/#comments">Time Capsule teardown</a>:
<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.tuaw.com/category/wireless/" rel="tag">Wireless</a>, <a href="http://www.tuaw.com/category/apple/" rel="tag">Apple</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/24254876@N03/2301713346/in/set-72157604011791554/"><img width="225" vspace="8" hspace="8" height="169" border="1" align="right" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2303/2301713346_d1db3c69d3.jpg?v=0" title="via Flickr user nakedmac" alt="via Flickr user nakedmac" id="via Flickr user nakedmac" /></a>Apple&#8217;s Time Capsule hasn&#8217;t even been shipping for a week yet, and Flickr user &#8220;<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/24254876@N03/2301713346/in/set-72157604011791554/">nakedmac</a>&#8221; has already dissected his Time Capsule. What may be surprising is that the Time Capsule is no more than an Airport Extreme with a hard drive. But remember when Steve said that the Time Capsule would feature a &#8220;server-grade hard drive?&#8221; Well, it features a <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/24254876@N03/2300920529/in/set-72157604011791554/">Hitachi Deskstar hard drive</a>. According to the <a href="http://typicalmacuser.com/wordpress/2008/03/01/time-capsules-server-grade-hard-drive-really/ ">Typical Mac User Podcast blog</a>, the Hitachi hard drive isn&#8217;t necessarily rated for &#8220;server-grade.&#8221;</p>
<p>Via <a href="http://www.tuaw.com">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)</a></p>
<p><span id="more-11"></span></p>
<p>My friend Andrew just bought one of these, but won&#8217;t get it until March 6.  He&#8217;ll be out of town though.  Maybe I&#8217;ll play with it while he&#8217;s gone.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jonmills.org/2008/03/01/time-capsule-teardown/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
