View Single Post
  #7  
Old July 28th 03, 08:45 AM
Jonathan Sachs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tod" wrote:

A "Quality" high end SCSI hard drive will last longer
under long term disk-intenive (24 hour a day) work.
But you are paying a lot more money.


The drives will be spinning all the time, but since this is a
workstation, they will not be seeking all the time. When I mentioned
"disk-intensive applications," I was thinking of my need for
performance during short periods of high activity, not the effects of
disk activity on the drives.

It never occurred to me that pounding the disk would actually wear it
out. I'm accustomed to thinking that drive life is dependent on
power-up time and the operating environment, and on power-up/down
cycles. Am I being too simplistic?

I would get a motherboard with the built-in Raid controller (only about $20
more).
Put the ATA/EIDE Boot hard drive on the Raid controller.


An interesting possibility, which I hadn't considered. It brings a
couple of questions to mind.

First, will I pay a performance penalty? I investigated RAID several
years ago, and learned that there was a substantial performance
penalty. Even with RAID 0 there was a penalty if the drives were not
synchronized (and IDE drives did not have the hardware necessary to do
that).

Second, what about noise, heat, and space requirements? This would
increase the number of drives in my system from 2 to 4, presumably
doubling all of those factors. Might I not find four IDE drives to be
nearly as noisy as two SCSI drives, or even noisier?

My mail address is jsachs177 at earthlink dot net.