Raid array Weirdness!

[cjolley]

And there I thought IBM was being Reaganesque.....
1, Arrogant
2, Dishonest
3, Failure dressed up as success.

Nothing Clinton did in foreign policy could ever match Reagans failure in Lebanon.

Chuck

[Gurm]

However, Reagan DID fix the economy. Everyone gives Clit-non credit, but the truth is that economic policies take 10 years or so to settle in. The economic boom during Clit-man's administration was due to Reagonomics.

Similarly, the slump we've been through recently is Billary's fault.

- Gurm

[Wombat]

Reagan did wonders for the national debt. How are we ever supposed to get rid of that now?

[Dr Mordrid]

1. in case you didn't know the US budget has been balanced for over a year.

2. the Reagan tax cuts actually caused a huge INCREASE in Federal tax revenues due to increased economic activity.

3. What actually caused the deficit was CONGRESS spending far in excess of those added revenues. I believe the gap was something like 18%....not exactly an oopsie but more like "oh, WOW....look at all that new money we can spend!!!!"

4. At the same time CONGRESS was ignoring a deal they had with Reagan that they would limit increases in other spending in return for upgrading the military, which had suffered heavily under Carter.

5. Yeah, right....Congress limiting spending while in the hands of the Democrats. When pigs fly and hell freezes over.....

Dr. Mordrid

[Indiana]

This reminds me of an old joke:

You know what happens when social democrats take over the lead in the desert?




At first nothing. But after some time they're getting short of sand....

[Dr Mordrid]

No kidding.

They act like the money they spend is theirs and not something they've coerced under threat of jail from some family on the edge of poverty, but not so close to the edge that they're immune to the IRS's bloodsuckers.

Dr. Mordrid

[cjolley]

You might like to go back & look at what years the Senate was controled by republicans.
In addition to that you might want to check out the budgets that Reagan submitted. They were even higher than what was passed.
The justification that he gave was that he spent more on defence, not that he spen less in the agregete.

Look quick though, we are prob about to get bumped to the "Soap Box"

chuck

[Dr Mordrid]

You're showing your ignorance of how a budget is created and passed.

The HOUSE writes the budget. The Senate and President can propose alternatives, but cannot write the budget or the implementing legislation. They do, however, have have checks defined in the Constitution.

When the President "sends his budget to the hill" it's a recommendation...not legislation to be passed.

These checks are limited by Senate and Constitutional rules and the willingness of the involved parties to allow a Government shutdown. As such they are rare, especially in the case of a split Congress or during an election year (which is half the time).

Basically, the House is in the saddle under most circumstances, especially in the case of budget bills that conflict. When this happens the House and Senate go into a "conference committee" consisting of a few representatives from both bodies. Typically the House is dominant.

When the committee is finished killing most of the Senates changes a "conference report" is issued and both houses have a single option: an up or down vote.

By the time the conference report is voted on the budget is usually OVERDUE and either Christmas vacation or an election is right around the corner, so they'll vote yes just to avoid the editorial hell that comes down when they don't and to get home for the Holidays.

The last I checked the Democrats controlled the house from 1948 to 1994, and thereby the purse strings during the Reagan and Bush #1 eras.

Dr. Mordrid

[cjolley]

Getting back to the topic (sort of)

We seem to have an "Array" of opinions on this....

So what you are saying is that the President controls taxes and congress controls spending?
That the only way you could get to the idea that they were Reagan tax cuts, but Democrat spending measures.

Of course the reality does not fit the theory.
Reagan was practically coronated King in his first election and Congress gave him virtually everything he asked for, including spending.

It's a cute theory though. Rush would be proud.
chuck

[Technoid]

Once heard that IRS had proof that a certine person vas a drug lord (he even had it in his inkomtax bracket) but they never told anyone else because he payd his taxes on his ilegal activities....

[Novdid]

That's almost so sad it's funny.

[cjolley]

Undoubtedly an Urban Legend.
chuck

[Snake-Eyes]

Add my IBM (one of 'em, anyhow- two in a RAID 0 array) to the list of bad ones. It's not failing completely yet, but I can feel it making it's way there. I unRAIDed the drives during my last rebuild (when I upgraded my mobo, processor, memory, and video). At the time I was going to just reformat the array and rebuild from scratch. But WinXP couldn't format the volume (it fooled me pretty good- went all the way through the format progress bar, THEN told me). So I unRAIDed them, and then it formatted them fine.

However, I couldn't stand the slowness of my system without the RAID (man, it's terrible how slow a fast drive seems compared to a pair of fast drives under RAID 0), so I tried to redo the RAID setup. Same problem occurred with XP not being able to format, so I again put them back on the primary IDE controllers, then downloaded IBMs Drive Fitness Test software, and ran that on them. One drive was perfectly fine, but the other has some bad sectors that I used the low-level Erase Disk option on (I did it on both, just to start with a clean slate). After that, XP set up fine. But now I get occasional file 'xxxxxx.xxx' is corrupt messages (usually most noticable during my benchmarking sessions as I try to tweak my new hardware), which disappears upon rebooting. Just in case, I had WinXP do a Scandisk/repair the last time I rebooted, and it DID find and fix some problems. This has happened no less than 3 times since I rebuilt this array.

I went out and bought a single Maxtor 80GB drive yesterday, wishing I could afford a pair of them right now (to completely replace the IBMs). I plan to make it my primary boot drive, with the RAIDed drives as my installation volume (for my games and stuff that I can easily reproduce if it should go south), then contact IBM for an RMA on the drive exhibiting the problems. If I can ever afford to get a second Maxtor, the IBMs will get to retire.

[Technoid]

Sounds almost exactly as my case.....