• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About bbeermat

  • Rank
  1. Anyone heard of Curtis Inc? Solid State Storage Architects, they call themselves. Only Fiber Channel and SCSI options, and the 200MB/s is only for the FC HyperXCLR, it's 80MB/s for the Ultra2SCSI Nitro!Xe and they don't say if those speeds are for writes as well. A review would be nice
  2. bbeermat

    Why not RAID 1 with an SSD and a Raptor?

    I see what you're saying, but in a RAID 1, during reads, whichever device retrieves the data first will immediately begin doing so, then when the other one catches up, data will stream from both devices. That's why RAID 1 is supposed to be be as fast as RAID 0 on reads, right? Possibly controller dependent? I thought performance on would be limited to the slowest device only on writes. Say you have lots of small files that need to be loaded and they're scattered over the 'disk', such as when booting or starting most programs. That will be fast because of the SSD low access times, even though the Raptor may never catch up under that scenario. Once you load a 'big' file, the Raptor will catch up, and it's high transfer rate will be added to the SSD's transfer rate. Remember we're only talking about reads here. How about 2 SSD's RAID 0, in RAID 1 with a Raptor to boost writes? Hope my ramblings makes sense. I just really wish I could try it.
  3. I've never seen this tested but I'm guessing it would give very high performance? Most data retrieval will begin from the SSD, giving low access times, then when the Raptor catches up, the transfer rate will go up. Not sure if this would work for writes, as the SSD would always be limited by the hard drive, correct? Anyone have an SSD to try this out?
  4. bbeermat

    Seagate Barracuda 7200.9

    At least we can find the number of platters for 7200.9 series from the model #: 160 GB - ST3160812A(S) = 1 platter (160 GB one; which is probably also used in 120/80/40 GB HDDs) 200 GB - ST3200827A(S) = 2 platters (may be 100 GB platters but may be also cut-off 133, rare if 160) 250 GB - ST3250824A(S) = 2 platters (probably 133 GB ones with small cut-offs, 160 is less probable) 300 GB - ST3300622A(S) = 2 platters (this means really 160 GB ones with small cut-offs) 400 GB - ST3400633A(S) = 3 platters (must be just 133 GB ones) 500 GB - ST3500641A(S) = 4 platters (as we know they are 133 GB ones with small cut-offs, or 125 ?) Note: This is not an official information, just some figuring out... No guarantee if this is all correct! By the way I was referring the above post, not the article. ......oops, I just noticed 888's "Note" at the end. Sorry, my mistake.
  5. bbeermat

    Seagate Barracuda 7200.9

    Just thought I'd bring up this article from Sharky's Extreme It has contradictions regarding platter sizes. Any comments on this anyone?
  6. bbeermat

    Nvidia 7800 GTX.

    Thank you for posting this, I will take one, serves Nvidia right, I now go to ATI after buying almost every new top of the line Nvidia card since TNT, see Nvidia you screwed yourselves. 218252[/snapback] Plus you get the 90nM process instead of 110nM least I think that's right! On top of that is the fact that you get VIVO on the AGP version but not on the PCI-E! At least one company is being kind to 'legacy' system owners.
  7. bbeermat

    Nvidia 7800 GTX.

    There IS hope for us AGP dependents! Check this out. X1800 available in AGP from Diamond
  8. Could RAID 5 using Windows 2003 actually be a safer option than using a cheap software assisted RAID controller card? RAID 5 protects you from single hard drive failure, but if your card dies in a RAID 5 array actually created by the card, the only way to get your data would be to either fix the card or buy a new one IF you can find the same card still. But, assuming you have a separate boot drive, if that dies and your array was created in Win2003, all you have to do is get a new hard drive and reinstall Win2003 to access your data again. I am about to setup a RAID 5 array from 4 hard drives attached to a Highpoint RocketRAID 404 and I'm trying to decide which way to go. Since the RR404 has no XOR engine, it will be using CPU time so there shouldn't be much performance hit from using Win2.3 software RAID. Are there other advantages/disadvantages of either method over the other?
  9. OK thanks guys. As an alternative I'm looking into software RAID 5 on WinXP, if it supports it, it may be more flexible.
  10. I'd like to create a 3 disk RAID 5 array on a Highpoint RocketRAID 404 flashed for RAID 5 capability. Would it be possible at a later stage to add another hard disk to the array to increase capacity, but to do so without having to create a new array from scratch and avoiding losing all the data on them. I have backups on CDs but I'd rather avoid the pain of reloading 1-200 CD's of data, just to grow the array.
  11. bbeermat

    Setting UDMA on external IDE controller

    I think this problem is most likely due to the DVD drive connected to the Promise controller. There are few optical drives which work properly with non-chipset IDE controllers. In fact most add-on IDE controllers don't even explicitly state CD/DVD drive support.
  12. bbeermat

    keeping computer cool

    P5-133XL, if you don't have an intake fan, it is not easy to control where the air enters from. I was considering a typical tower, not 1U to clarify, as I have no experience with 1U cases. Having a filtered fan at the bottom, front of the case, where the HD's are almost always located will keep them cool and ensure that most air enters via the filter, rather than through random holes around the case.
  13. Interesting. Mine also only clicked when first powering on, after which it seemed fine until a BSOD occured. Have you tried Hitachi's hard disk diagnostics program?
  14. bbeermat

    keeping computer cool

    Another good reason for keeping the sides on is dust reduction. It's most applicable when you have a filter over an intake fan, but anything to keep dust from bulding up in the CPU heatsink fins is a good thing.
  15. purrr? I thought it was meeowww? I had the same clicking issue, plus BSOD's with a 160GB PATA version, but it turned out to be a bad IDE cable. No harm in trying it with a different SATA cable.