rugger

Member
  • Content Count

    715
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by rugger

  1. Either would do the job fine, BUT, 1) SCSI is good on file servers, they are optimized for them 2) SCSI drives are more reliable and faster than IDE drives 3) RAID 1 is not very CPU intensive, so either a RAID controller or software RAID will work fine. I would go for the SCSI, 10k or 15k drives depending on your budget.
  2. rugger

    What kind of IDE cable is this?

    It is an ATA-66/100/133 cable which someone was testing their hole punch on
  3. rugger

    The Storage Authority?

    I would give them a break if they didn't send unsolicited email to my account. OK, you don't need to give them a break over that. :twisted:
  4. rugger

    The Storage Authority?

    Give them a break. They are far more active at the moment than storagereview. A little immature still, but not too shabby. Maybe even storagereview could even learn a thing or two from them. The fact that storagereview has been comtemplating closing is probably enough to bring a few wannabes outa the closet anyway.
  5. My advice, Don't partition any more than you absolutely have to. When you partition your drive, what you do will be set in stone, and make it very time consuming to change anything I would recommend 1) boot partition - with all the music programs you want, virus scanners, internet programs ect. ect. 2) A data partition - with all of your projects on it, because you don't know how big any one project would be. BTW, any particular reason you need 5 boots?
  6. 1) Choose the maxtor or western digitial drives. They are reliable and work in raid. IBM still have a bad reputation from the GXP75 drives. Segate drives don't like raid at all. 2) Use raid-0 for performace. But don't come crying to us when a drive fails and all of your data goes bye-bye. IN OTHER WORDS, BE SURE YOU NEED RAID BEFORE DOING IT. 3) If you continue with raid 0, put each drive onto a separate interface (ie don't put 2 drives onto one cable using slave and master). If you do put more than one drive onto a cable, you will lose ANY performace improvement RAID-0 gives you (since only one drive on a cable can be accessed at a time, and all requests are serialized) It also doesn't matter what interface (ATA100 or ATA133) you use, since no single drive can go faster than the old ATA66 interface, and only one drive can be accessed on a interface. 4) Consider using SCSI drives in your RAID array, or even SCSI drives by themselves. High end SCSI drives are really a LOT faster and a LOT more reliable than the best IDE drives.
  7. You you owned a computer shop, it wouldn't be worth your while pawning off the old crap. Old network cards are useless because you can buy new 10/100 cheapies for less then $20 US, and they generally work very well. Beats wasting hours configuring non-plug and play junk, and with technical support, which would cost you more in the long run. Old sound cards are just the same, you can buy new sound cards very cheaply too (they might not be very good, but they still work fine for most people). However AWE32, AWE64 cards are still good and I would never throw one out unless I absolutely had to. There are some really nice old cases too, but most of the old cases I have seen have been TERRIBLE to work on. The work are probably the AT minitowers. No space to work in, sharp edges everywhere, things often didn't fit together like they should, yuck. Cases have in general improved since ATX was introduced.
  8. So typical of our consumer society... hehe. At least I have fun when I need to throw computer parts away. Motherboards in particular give a satisfing crunch and spray of shrapnel when hit by a sledge hammer :twisted:
  9. Modern Monitors have anti-glare coatings that may mess up and get removed if you use an abrasive cleaner/polish. You may end up making the monitor worse this way. rather than removing the scratch
  10. Ulukay, But using faulty benchmarks helps nobody You can't determine any conclusions using a benchmark that has such a poor accuraccy and reproducability. You can run the Sandra benchmark many times in a row and get completely different answers each time. How do you know that your improvements were produced by the latency patch and not by sandra's own inaccuraccy. Use a reliable benchmark, then your results will mean something 8)
  11. It works for me under windows 2000. The update will install the full version if it finds a recent registered version of nero on there :roll: Not sure what it will do in XP though
  12. You can setup and use software raid on different partitions on a single drive, BUT DON'T DO IT :!: As others have posted above, it is very slow (I have tried, because I wanted to learn how to do software raid for a work project) It also does nothing to improve reliability. If the single drive dies, it doesn't matter how many times data it is stored on it, it is still dead and you cannot access any copy of it. If your interested in faster hard drive performace, buy a SCSI controller and a good 10K or 15K hard drive. If you are interested in protecting your data, back it up. In general, you should only use raid when you really know whats going on, when you can finally know you really need it. (instead of just following a fad, which cheap (and rather crappy) IDE RAID controllers have initaited)
  13. rugger

    The effect of RAM on compilation ?

    The amount of ram a computer doing a compilation needs is determined by the size and complexity of the program being compiled. Also, don't fool yourself that lots of caching is required for speedy compiles. 16meg of disk cache (read/write) is all that is needed, simply to cache common header files and collate object file writeouts. Compiling is a very batch style job. For normal C programs, there is little benifet in more than 128meg of ram. C programs are very simple to compile and link together (even very big ones, like linux kernel) However, for large C++ programs, the GNU C++ compiler can eaisly chew through 150meg or more of memory, especially when performing optimization. (Try compiling kde and watching the memory usage). For compiling these sorts of programs, 256meg or even 512meg of ram will give you optimum performance.
  14. rugger

    Samsung SP4004H like an airplane!

    Same here. My old samsung 8gig drive is quite noisy, but still works perfectly. It is 3 and a half years old though :-) If it bugs you, replace it, otherwise don't worry about it
  15. My list of wants for IDE, that I obviously can't get are: 1) 10K rpm IDE drives 2) Faster access time (but it doesn't need to be as good as SCSI) 3) BETTER RELIABILITY!!!! I doubt I will get any of those though, we will most likly get clunky, fragile 200gig drives that run at 5400rpm :-(