If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
David H. Lipman wrote in message ... Using RAID 5, I can use 5 x 80GB drives and get 320GB instead of buying two 250GB drives. And still pay much more in total than when using IDE mirroring on the motherboard or mirroring in the OS. As for use of mirroring software, never. Mindless, as always. Too much overhead *always* use hardware based RAID solutions. Not a ****ing clue. Particularly with the scenario being discussed, just keeping photos. **** all overhead when a new photo isnt added very often enough to matter and it always takes some time to get new photos into the system anyway. And you MUST have more than any form of RAID or mirroring to protect against the real risks of system theft, fire or flood etc anyway. The only thing that makes any sense currently is to write new photos to multiple DVDs once they have been edited etc and keep at least one of the copys offsite. While superficially the time to write to DVDs isnt trivial, its actually a small part of the total time involved with a new photo with everything from taking the photo, getting it into the PC, editing it, saving it to multiple DVDs etc. In addition, you suggest the best solution Pity RAID5 SCSI doesnt qualify because it does NOT protect against the very real risks of system theft, fire or flood etc. and work you way down not the worst solutuion More utterly mindless silly stuff. and work your way up. Wank your way in either direction in your case. Mindlessly wank in fact. That is why I start at RAID 5 SCSI. More fool you when it does NOT protect against the very real risks of system theft, fire or flood etc. That's the starting point Only for fools like you that aint gotta clue about what real backup is about. and the OP can go down the list. The only thing that makes any sense at all is to ensure that there is real protection against the very real risks of system theft, fire or flood etc and THEN consider if there is the cost of any form of mirroring is justified at all. If the OP decides that in the unlikely event of the death of the new drive, that what photos need to be back on the replacement from the DVD backups need to be available quickly, mirroring may be justified, at twice the price. And as also stated there is RAID 5 SATA. You aint even established any need for the high availability that RAID5 brings with it with a personal desktop system. Mirroring may well be all thats actually needed if any duplication is required at all with real backup in place. I was just at SeaGate Look at this SCSI drive Seagate ST336607LC MTBF (Hours) 1,200,000 hours A completely irrelevant number with a personal desktop system. I looked at SATA and Ultra ATA drives. They don't even list the MTBF value for these drives. Another lie. They're in the product manuals, stupid. Why ? Because MTBFs are completely useless, fool. because they have a much lower MTBF maybe 80K hours at best. Another lie. Try 600K, liar. Meaning, they have a higher failure rate. Not a ****ing clue. Below are three drives; SATA Ultra ATA and SCSI all approx 80GB. A size thats completely useless for the OP. The drives have been selected to be similar to level the playing field. The size has actually been selected to make SCSI look better, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist. However, the SCSI drive in all aspects beats the SATA and Ultra ATA except in price. Pity that the real comparison between a single ATA 250GB drive and SCSI RAID5 total price of the same capacity is nothing like your flagrantly dishonest comparison. And when the RAID5 SCSI will still need the same backup approach to protect against the very real risks of system theft, fire or flood etc, you cant get away with claiming that RAID5 SCSI gives more protection for the MUCH higher price. The ONLY thing it gives is higher availability and that is very unlikely to be justifiable with a personal desktop system. The SCSI is more expensive. MUCH more expensive in fact when the correct comparison is done. rice comparisons done at http://www.cdw.com/ SATA drive Model Number:ST380013AS CDW Price $119.85 The real drive should have been Maxtor DiamondMax 16, 250GB Hard Drive CDW Price $267.47 Pity you completely ignored the cost of the RAID5 SCSI hardware. Thats gunna be free from the fairys at the bottom of the garden or Santa eh ? Capacity:80 GB Speed:7200 rpm Seek time:8.5 ms avg Interface:Serial ATA Internal Transfer Rate (Mbits/sec) 683 Max. External Transfer Rate (Mbytes/sec) 150 Avg. Sustained Transfer Rate (Mbytes/sec) 58 Average Seek (msec) 8.5 Average Latency (msec) 4.16 Multisegmented Cache 8192 Spindle Speed (RPM) 7200 Ultra ATA drive Model Number:ST380011A CDW price: $86.95 Capacity:80 GB Speed:7200 rpm Seek time:8.5 ms avg Interface:Ultra ATA/100 Internal Transfer Rate (Mbits/sec) 683 Max. External Transfer Rate (Mbytes/sec) 100 Avg. Sustained Transfer Rate (Mbytes/sec) 58 Average Seek (msec) 8.5 Average Latency (msec) 4.16 Multisegmented Cache 2048 Spindle Speed (RPM) 7200 Ultra320 SCSI drive Model Number:ST373307LW CDW price: $409.50 And since you will need 5 of those, thats $2,050 for the drives alone. And you'll need to add the cost of the RAID5 SCSI to that. Hang on, thats OVER TEN TIMES THE COST OF THE ONLY SENSIBLE APPROACH. Game, set and match, I believe. Capacity:73 GB Speed:10000 rpm Seek time:4.7 ms avg Interface:Ultra320 SCSI MTBF (Hours) 1,200,000 hours Internal Transfer Rate, ZBR (Mbits/sec) 475-840 Internal Formatted Transfer Rate (Mbytes/sec) 43-78 External Transfer Rate (mbytes/sec) 320 Track-to-track Seek Read/Write (msec) 0.3/0.5 Average Seek Read/Write (msec) 4.7/5.2 Average Latency (msec) 2.99 Spindle Speed (RPM) 10000 "Tom Scales" wrote in message ... | Your approach is illogical and irrational. You know it, but refuse to admit | it. | | The approach I use, which is, uh, rational, is two IDE hard drives and | decent mirroring software. | | Heck of a lot cheaper than any SCSI Raid solution. SCSI is not measureably | more reliable than today's IDE drives. | | | Tom | |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:16:58 +1000, "Cristian Croitoru"
wrote: Speaking of speed and not being particularly familiar with the SCSI protocol, my common sense tells me that having a stripe on a IDE multichannel controller can push the speed quite some way.. Again my common sense tells me that a SCSI controller can not stream data from more than one drive at a time, as only one drive can put data on the bus at the same time Your common sense failed this time. With a SCSI ALL disks can read or write at the same time. That is one of the strengths of scsi Of course, at home you will have trouble using this strength. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
derek / nul wrote in message ... Cristian Croitoru wrote Speaking of speed and not being particularly familiar with the SCSI protocol, my common sense tells me that having a stripe on a IDE multichannel controller can push the speed quite some way.. Again my common sense tells me that a SCSI controller can not stream data from more than one drive at a time, as only one drive can put data on the bus at the same time Your common sense failed this time. Nope. With a SCSI ALL disks can read or write at the same time. Nope. You can only read or write from a single drive at one time. That is one of the strengths of scsi Nope. Of course, at home you will have trouble using this strength. Wrong again, particularly with RAID. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Cristian Croitoru" wrote in message ... Me Speaking of speed and not being particularly familiar with the SCSI protocol, my common sense tells me that having a stripe on a IDE multichannel controller can push the speed quite some way.. Again my common sense tells me that a SCSI controller can not stream data from more than one drive at a time, as only one drive can put data on the bus at the same time "derek: Your common sense failed this time. With a SCSI ALL disks can read or write at the same time. That is one of the strengths of scsi Of course, at home you will have trouble using this strength. Well, I have tried to understand HOW, how is posibile for multiple devices to send electrical signals on the same wire in the same time.. How is this possible form the electrical point of view? It isnt, he's got that completely wrong. With separate channels you have separate buses, separate electrical paths; Correct. the data of the stripe is rebuilt in the controller's logic but essentialy the logical path is 6 times wider. Correct. I am not trying my skills in retorics, I am just trying to understand.. He's got it completely wrong. You have it right. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Me
Speaking of speed and not being particularly familiar with the SCSI protocol, my common sense tells me that having a stripe on a IDE multichannel controller can push the speed quite some way.. Again my common sense tells me that a SCSI controller can not stream data from more than one drive at a time, as only one drive can put data on the bus at the same time "derek: Your common sense failed this time. With a SCSI ALL disks can read or write at the same time. That is one of the strengths of scsi Of course, at home you will have trouble using this strength. Well, I have tried to understand HOW, how is posibile for multiple devices to send electrical signals on the same wire in the same time.. How is this possible form the electrical point of view? With separate channels you have separate buses, separate electrical paths; the data of the stripe is rebuilt in the controller's logic but essentialy the logical path is 6 times wider. I am not trying my skills in retorics, I am just trying to understand.. Thanks Cristian Croitoru |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"Codswallop" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 04:06:02 GMT, Hunter1 wrote in aus.computers: Would agree with that, but wonder why you seem to think SCSI is a necessity??? I tend to think SCSI is over-rated, IDE RAID does the job without any probs and is much cheaper. Doesn't the architecture of IDE stop more than one access at a time? Yes, but so does SCSI. With IDE you have more than one bus and those can certainly be used simultaneously. Some of the IDE RAID controllers actually have a separate ATA bus for each device. SCSI doesnt. With SCSI you can access multiple devices simultaneously; Nope. You cant read and write on more than one device per bus. What you actually have with SCSI is the possibility of telling one drive to move to a particular track and then using the bus with another drive while it does that. which is of huge benefit in the enterprise. It isnt as big a benefit as you might think and is nothing like whats possible with IDE with a separate bus per drive. If IDE was as good as you say, you'd see people snapping up IDE HDDs for enterprise use as opposed to SCSI HDDs. Plenty do just that. And plenty of just mindlessly tool along using SCSI. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:30:46 +1000, "Cristian Croitoru"
wrote: Me Speaking of speed and not being particularly familiar with the SCSI protocol, my common sense tells me that having a stripe on a IDE multichannel controller can push the speed quite some way.. Again my common sense tells me that a SCSI controller can not stream data from more than one drive at a time, as only one drive can put data on the bus at the same time "derek: Your common sense failed this time. With a SCSI ALL disks can read or write at the same time. That is one of the strengths of scsi Of course, at home you will have trouble using this strength. Well, I have tried to understand HOW, how is posibile for multiple devices to send electrical signals on the same wire in the same time.. How is this possible form the electrical point of view? With separate channels you have separate buses, separate electrical paths; the data of the stripe is rebuilt in the controller's logic but essentialy the logical path is 6 times wider. I am not trying my skills in retorics, I am just trying to understand.. Yes, I understand, and I did not explain myself very well at all. Let me say that all drives on a controller can be reading and writing at the same time, this does not mean that they are holding onto the buss at that time. Buss speed 160Mb/s, drive speed 20Mb/s therefore 8 devices r/w at the same time. All drives have buffers (double buffers actually), when a buffer is full, the drive raises a flag (data available) to say he wants to transfer some data, when the buss is free there will be a buss available signal. In effect we have a multiplexed system happening here, unlike an IDE device which holds the buss for the complete transfer. I hope that sounds better. Derek |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
The limitation has nothing to do with the partition size, it is drive size.
As you mention, the A04 or above BIOS is required, but I can attest personally that with the current BIOS and XP Pro SP1, the 4550 with support both the 250GB drive AND partitions over 137GB. Tom "Kernelpanic" wrote in message . net... "Suzeann Loomis" wrote in message ... Help, please. I have been told that I can only add another 120 gigabyte hard drive to my Dell 4550. But people at a local computer shop say I can add a 250 gigabyte hard drive. Which is true? I need more space for my photography. Thank you. Suze Loomis Suze, I read all the post, from which alot of it got off the subject that you had posted. Did you try and contact Dell? If you have support for you system, I suggest you contact Dell, even though there may be those that will oppose it. Please post the firmware rev that you BIOS is using(Rev. A04 added "UDMA support for 48-bit LBA hard drives over 137GB"), and what OS you are running on the system(i.e., WinXP Home, WinXP Pro SP1, etc...). You should be able to install a 250GB HD in your system, but it may depend on your OS and BIOS firmware for how big a partition can be. The new HD may come with a utility to help you partition your HD. If adding the drive as a 2nd drive, your problem may be simply that you can't create a partition greater then 120GB(Actually it's slightly larger), but you can create a few partitions on that new HD. I also hope that you are backing up your files. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
You cannot accomplish that in a Dimension 4550. There are not 5 spots for
drives NOR enough power supply. You could also not do it for the same price as the pair of 250GB drives. You are making suggestions that make no sense for the 4550. I could probably get an IBM Shark array to work too, for a couple hundred thousand. I also did not clarify my comment. I do not use active, full time mirror. I should have said automated backup software. I happen to use Iomega's QuikSync which is 'near real time' and has trivial overhead. You are providing no value to the original poster with suggestions that are not appropriate for her configuration. Tom "David H. Lipman" wrote in message ... Tom: Using RAID 5, I can use 5 x 80GB drives and get 320GB instead of buying two 250GB drives. As for use of mirroring software, never. Too much overhead *always* use hardware based RAID solutions. In addition, you suggest the best solution and work you way down not the worst solutuion and work your way up. That is why I start at RAID 5 SCSI. That's the starting point and the OP can go down the list. And as also stated there is RAID 5 SATA. I was just at SeaGate Look at this SCSI drive Seagate ST336607LC MTBF (Hours) 1,200,000 hours I looked at SATA and Ultra ATA drives. They don't even list the MTBF value for these drives. Why ? because they have a much lower MTBF maybe 80K hours at best. Meaning, they have a higher failure rate. Below are three drives; SATA Ultra ATA and SCSI all approx 80GB. The drives have been selected to be similar to level the playing field. However, the SCSI drive in all aspects beats the SATA and Ultra ATA except in price. The SCSI is more expensive. rice comparisons done at http://www.cdw.com/ SATA drive Model Number:ST380013AS CDW Price $119.85 Capacity:80 GB Speed:7200 rpm Seek time:8.5 ms avg Interface:Serial ATA Internal Transfer Rate (Mbits/sec) 683 Max. External Transfer Rate (Mbytes/sec) 150 Avg. Sustained Transfer Rate (Mbytes/sec) 58 Average Seek (msec) 8.5 Average Latency (msec) 4.16 Multisegmented Cache 8192 Spindle Speed (RPM) 7200 Ultra ATA drive Model Number:ST380011A CDW price: $86.95 Capacity:80 GB Speed:7200 rpm Seek time:8.5 ms avg Interface:Ultra ATA/100 Internal Transfer Rate (Mbits/sec) 683 Max. External Transfer Rate (Mbytes/sec) 100 Avg. Sustained Transfer Rate (Mbytes/sec) 58 Average Seek (msec) 8.5 Average Latency (msec) 4.16 Multisegmented Cache 2048 Spindle Speed (RPM) 7200 Ultra320 SCSI drive Model Number:ST373307LW CDW price: $409.50 Capacity:73 GB Speed:10000 rpm Seek time:4.7 ms avg Interface:Ultra320 SCSI MTBF (Hours) 1,200,000 hours Internal Transfer Rate, ZBR (Mbits/sec) 475-840 Internal Formatted Transfer Rate (Mbytes/sec) 43-78 External Transfer Rate (mbytes/sec) 320 Track-to-track Seek Read/Write (msec) 0.3/0.5 Average Seek Read/Write (msec) 4.7/5.2 Average Latency (msec) 2.99 Spindle Speed (RPM) 10000 Dave "Tom Scales" wrote in message ... | Your approach is illogical and irrational. You know it, but refuse to admit | it. | | The approach I use, which is, uh, rational, is two IDE hard drives and | decent mirroring software. | | Heck of a lot cheaper than any SCSI Raid solution. SCSI is not measureably | more reliable than today's IDE drives. | | | Tom | |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 05:00:30 GMT, Leythos wrote:
In article , says... As for use of mirroring software, never. Too much overhead *always* use hardware based RAID solutions. You have no experience to back that statement, it shows. I have 7 servers with dual 100gb drives in them, all are IDE, all run at least a dozen web sites (asp.net ones) and several FTP sites. The drives are mirrored using Windows 2000 software mirror. All drives are setup with 6GB for the first partition, and the remainder for the second partition. The servers take about 30,000 hits per day and never show any bottle neck at the drive layer (using perfmon) I would not expect any bottlenecks at 1 hit every 3 seconds, any IDE could handle that. SCSI comes in handy at 30 hits per second |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Skybuck's adventure with the Hitachi Deskstar 7K250 123.5 GB ;) | Skybuck Flying | Asus Motherboards | 15 | November 17th 04 07:49 PM |
Is my hard drive the source of my CD burning woes? | Jonathan King | General | 4 | March 19th 04 12:06 AM |
two hd's on same IDE channel | Steve James | General | 25 | March 13th 04 12:06 AM |
REPOST: A7V333: no longer able to access hard disks at boot time | Chris Metzler | Asus Motherboards | 6 | January 8th 04 06:29 PM |
P4P800 Dlx W2K new SATA? | Ken Fox | Asus Motherboards | 8 | January 7th 04 02:45 PM |