I just got my 15k.3 and 29160n. I'm using Sandra 2003.2.9.44 and I'm wondering if my results are as they should be or if they could be better.
I appreciate any input anyone may have.
Since I got a game system I only have 32bit/33mhz PCI. I'd like to get 2 x 15k.3 for it to run in RAID 0 but am unsure about what controller to get. I was thinking about getting a 2100s. Is this a good controller? Do I have any other options.
System specs are going to be:
Abit IC7-G Canterwood with gigabit that won't hog my PCI bus.
2.8/800fsb or 3.06/533fsb
The raid controller is going to be alone on the PCI bus except for the audigy2 which I don't believe will hog too much bandwidth(am I wrong here?).
Any suggestions would be very much appreciated.
What do you mean by corrupt containers? I've never heard of this before and have not been able to find any info on this after a short search. Can you point me in the right direction of information or can you let me know what's up?
RAID 1 is not a backup. It's an availability measure. Get a virus on one drive and guess what? You have a beautiful mirror of the same mess on the other drive. Accidentally delete important data on one drive and guess what? It's gone from the other drive too.
I'd seriously never thought of that before.. amazing. No sarcasm intended.
I'd go with software or hardware RAID 1. The only hardware controller I've had any experience with is the promise tx2 which seemed to work alright for raid 1. I have no idea about performance or any other hardware IDE RAID products.
Ok, I think I'm up to speed on the whole Adaptec SCSI RAID = crap thing. I've been reading SR forum history.
There isn't anything comparatively priced to the 2100s that doesn't suck is there? bah.. of course not.
I think I'll just go single 36GB 15k.3. Thanks for the help honold, Cougtek, boggsie.
I figure 2 x 18GB 15k.3 + 2100s = 680$
and 2 x 18GB 15k.3 + 29160n = 620$
It wouldn't cost that much more.
If I had one I'd be doing 50-60MB/s and if I had two I figure I'd be maxing my PCI ~100MB/s. I'm going to get a canterwood which has the gigabit on a separate bus so I could come close to maxing out the gigabit to my fileserver which has IDE RAID/gigabit that can do 100MB/s reads easy.
Oh.. and also because I can. :twisted:
I know that hard drives rely on clusters to store data in chunks and that each FAT table has a set amount of FAT entries it can use. FAT32 is limited to 524,208(found on google) entries so the larger the drive you have the bigger the cluster size you need to use. Big cluster size also causes slack(ie 5KB file on a 32KB cluster would still take up the 32KB cluster) so you should use the smallest cluster size you can as to save space. I know that you also have to keep FAT table size in mind when you set cluster size because the computer likes to store that in the memory so it can access files quick. I'm pretty sure rule of thumb is to keep this around 8MB but I'm not really sure how to calculate FAT size based on cluster size and HD size.. is there some formula for this?
Anywho I'm trying to learn about this stuff and I was hoping you all could check my knowledge and fill in the blank spots for me . I also don't know much about ntfs and it's advantages. I found pcguide.com a good reference for everything fat32 or older but I would like to know about the advantages of ntfs.
I do mine with smart ripper, dvd2avi, virtual dub, nandub, and lame. I run xp pro. As for encoding directly off the cd(ermm dvd) it's not good for the drive because of the wear and tear of 5-25hours of constant reading(dependant on cpu speed/quality)
http://www.hypermicro.com/store/index.htm they have them cheap.
8 x 160GB maxtor in raid 5 (7x160=1.12TB)
I'm guessing that would run you about 2300$ to your door.
A nice bench on that exact setup strait from the horses mouth(is that the way the cliche' goes?).