quote:

Originally posted by Trance-Canada make sure they are sata because it all about bandwidth, not rpms.

what BW are you talking about? Most of the time, the interface is NOT the limit. And with 'whoping' 8MB of cache, it really doesn't matter if u can retrieve those at 150MB/s or 100MB/s.

The rotational speed improves the latency, which is important if the data you want is not in the cache. Additionally, it improved read/ write speed of the HDD, therefore allowing you to stream more data continuously.


If I had the $$, I'd get the WD360GD right now.. but I need more storage, not a boot drive at this point.

___________________

get font

I see your 4 Crushs and raise you 3 As The Rush Comes. - Yan from PvD's first summerstage event in '03

quote:

Originally posted by Trance-Canada get 2 200gb hdds "7200rpm" with 8mb cache and set them up with raid 0

I would not recommend a RAID 0 array. Drive failure of any of the two drives will result in data loss (in RAID 0, data is shared between both drives).

whatever... i know raid 0 is for speed.... anyway i made a post a while back on some diff forums contaning this



"I was out to find out about RAID and stumbled across this article explaining everything, imo, about what the basics of raid are and data striping and what RAID0,1,2,3,4,5 are and the uses of these for normal/server use. It is a very good read and I hope you get as much out of it as I did.

http://www.uni-mainz.de/~neuffer/scsi/what_is_raid.html

This also explains the history of RAID and how it originated

http://www.raidweb.com/whatis.html
another useful RAID link I came across."

and SATA is just as good a SCSI, if not better. probably a bit less in price too...

quote:

Originally posted by ali92 Also, about the storage one, I'm deciding between 3 manufacturers: Western Digital, Maxtor, and Seagate. If you know of any other manufacturers that are MORE reliable than any of these three, let me know. Anyway, I always thought that Western Digital's drives were the most reliable but, Maxtor's drives has the most capacity. Can someone on here who knows give me some proof to this? Or is reliability the same in both manufacturers' drives? I'll add here that I want a drive with an 8 MB buffer, not the 2 MB industry-standard buffer. If anyone can give me some insight on this issue, please LET ME KNOW. Thanks!

don't get maxtor.... cheap and big but they die like so fast
i've already gone through 2 of them. get Western Digital 8mb cache.


excellent drive... make sure you get the 100mb ide cable too makes it faster to transfer

___________________
butterfly - what is a wang?
occrider - an object you stick into a poon.

quote:

Originally posted by Trance-Canada and SATA is just as good a SCSI, if not better. probably a bit less in price too...

be more precise please. SATA 150 vs WHICH SCSI?


"Better" is a very undefined term. What are you talking about :
-cost
-speed
-reliability
-scalability


I can say that SATA is not BETTER than U160/ U320 SCSI in terms of scalability. SATA is not even CLOSE to as good at the two above, since each SATA channel has at most 1 drive.

SATA is generally cheaper than SCSI, that much is true.

Apart from price -at this point- SATA is faster, more reliable and more 'futureproof' than Paralell ATA.

___________________

get font

I see your 4 Crushs and raise you 3 As The Rush Comes. - Yan from PvD's first summerstage event in '03

Thanks for all the advice. I never planned to deal with RAID-0 for the reason of crashing. If one drive crashes, you're screwed. See, the problem is that reviews of the newest drives like I want to get won't be available very soon. These drives just came out. Many people haven't used them very much. Sure they work fine NOW. What about a year or 2 from now? Anyone wonder when HDDs with 1 TB will be out? Maybe 2006-2008?