• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About XBrit

  • Rank
  1. XBrit

    The Death Of Raid

    Yeah I totally agree RAID-0 is for morons and retards only. Massive reduction in system reliability for questionable performance gain. All of my RAID arrays are RAID-5 currently. On the whole, this has worked OK. But its clear to me that there are performance bottlenecks in my current setup (LSI Ultra320-2 card in a PCI 33MHz/32-bit slot with 6 x Cheetah 15k.3 73 MB disks, Asus P4C800E-Deluxe MB, Pentium 3.0 Northwood). My plan for the fall is to get the Asus NCCH-DL motherboard, with a pair of Nocona 3.6 GHz/1MB L2/800 FSB processors. And to get a LSI Ultra302-2x board with PCI-X and a much faster RAID XOR processor. Hopefully that will improve performance, has anybody else got more suggestions? I know that going completely RAID-1 would be faster, but then I'd need 10 disks instead of 6 and the cost and heat problems would mount up.
  2. There may have been some marketing name changes, but this is the retail package I'm familiar with and which I believe to be DiamondMax Plus 9. http://www.compusa.com/products/product_in...2225&pfp=BROWSE Cache Size: 8 MB Limited Warranty: 1 Year (12 Months)
  3. The DiamondMax Plus 9 and the Maxline Plus II are the EXACT same drive made on the same assembly lines. The very small price difference between the products is simply the extra costs (to Maxtor) of a 3-yr warranty vs a 1-year warranty. I personally have had a horrendous experience with 250GB Maxtor drives. Bought 8 of the DiamondMax, and within 8 months I'd done 15 RMA's because of huge numbers of blocks going bad. The drives were being run under perfect conditions of power and cooling, and were not heavily used. All of the RMA replacements I received werre labelled Maxline, and they were actually worse than the DiamondMax. Anyway I salvaged 2 good drives from the original 8, tossed the other 6 in the trash, and bought WD's. No problems whatever now, in the identical system setup. Oddly enough, I also have 6 200GB DiamondMax-Plus9, and they have been flawless. So I think there is/was a specific problem with the 250GB units.
  4. Seems like good advice. I'm just amazed, if my experience is at all typical, that there hasn't been more discussion.
  5. Hi all. I have several Maxtor 200GB DM+9 drives which have been working just fine for about 8 months. I also have a bunch of 250GB DM+9 and MaxlinePlusII drives (the 2 models are identical except for warranty as far as I can tell). Both models of 250GB drive have had really bad failure rates, I think its like 50% so far, as in 6 bad drives out of 12 including several RMA replacements which have themselves gone bad. The failures are the typical deal, escalating numbers of "media errors" (bad blocks) reported by the RAID card, then the RAID card eventually fails the drive. I have used AIDA32 to verify the SMART data, and the failed drives all have horrible numbers of bad blocks, in the several thousand range. All drives are very carefully cooled, using direct forced airflow from 3 fans minimum. I have checked by placing my hand on the drives, under heavy load they are just comfortably warm. The 200GB drives have been just fine, the 250GB drives under identical usage nad cooling have been terrible. So, is it just me? Or is there a problem that nobody is talking about?
  6. I have 6 of the Maxtor 6Y200P0 and 6 of the Maxtor 6Y250P0 drives. In idle mode, you are right, they are quieter than WD, about the same as IBM/Hitachi, and noisier than Seagates. If you remove one from its mounting in the PC and just dangle it in mid-air with the cables conected, the seek sound is audible but not annoying. The big problem seems to be the vibrations. These are transmitted to the sheet metal in the PC case to produce noise, like a drum. I now have 6 of my drives mounted in 3-1/2" bays with rubber grommets, and the other 6 in 5-1/2" bays on on special rubber mountings. The noise problem is reduced a lot. When all 12 drives are seeking the noise is noticeable but not annoying. Rubber grommets are sold at Radio Shack in assortment packets. Use the smallest ones, and drill the screw holes in the PC case a little wider so you can fit the grommets into them. For rubber mountings I use the Innovatek ones. Not cheap but strongly recommended. http://www.sharkacomputers.com/ininre2.html
  7. Hi all. I need to set up an online data archive for 2.5 TB of multimedia files. It has to be reliable, obviously, because there's no practical way to back up that much data. It also has to be reasonably cheap. First decision, use 300GB ATA disks for cost ... the maxtor Maxline II's seem like the most reliable product. Second decision, use RAID-5 for data security. So OK, I need 10 disks minimum (9 data plus 1 parity). That gives me a choice of exactly 1 ATA RAID card, the 3ware Escalade 7506/8506 12-banger. No advantage to SATA here, so I would pick the 7506. 2 problems with this. First, the Escalade cards totally suck in RAID-5 performance, according to this review: http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2002q4/ideraid/ Second, all 10 disks need to be physically inside the server, which creates problems with cooling... I can find server cases which will hold that many disks, but nothing that will cool all 10 effectively. I don't want to use 2 separate servers for operational reasons. So. the solution I am thinking about is to use the ATA disks, but with a SCSI controller and cabling. There is a nifty IDE-to-SCSI adapter made by Acard, their AEC-7726Q: http://www.acard.com/eng/product/scside/aec-7726q.html Tom's Hardware reviewed an earlier version of this little gadget, and they found it works well. No significant performance penalty. Naturally I trust every word they say, LOL: http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/200301...0130/index.html I can buy the 7726Q for $75 with quantity discount, so the price is acceptable as a % of the whole system. asuming these things work OK, things get really easy after that, because I can use 20 years of SCSI technology and experience. I am thinking 5 disks in the server, 5 disks in a generic external box, and an Adaptec 2120s SCSI RAID-5 controller. So, any opinions before I blow the $6k to get this thing built?
  8. Hi all. I have a nice new LSI SCSI RAID adapter, an "Elite 1600" (the one thats widely available on EBay). I also have 3 x 73GB Seagate Cheetah 15k.3 drives. So, my next issue is, how to set them up. My only concern is performance. My disk-intensive activities include video editing, collecting multimedia off Usenet (500-MB Usenet header lists, Gig-sized sets of RAR and PAR archives), thumbnailing jpg collections, burning CD's and DVD's, gaming, etc. My first idea was to have one disk as a single, and use it for WinXP, apps and "critical data" - meaning email, tax returns and all that, plus the database for my jpg thumbnails. Then the other two disks as a RAID-0 array, to be used for bulk storage of recently-downloaded multimedia and jpg's. But I don't think I really need 145 MB/s for sequential IO, the main benefit from the Cheetahs is the fast random access when working with smaller files or when multi-tasking on several operations on large files. Now I'm wondering whether I'll be better to set the 2 bulk-storage disks up as a plain old spanned set, rather than RAID-0. In effect, this means RAID-0 with a 73GB stripe size. The LSI card allows stuff like this to be set up in the BIOS, I wouldn't need to to use any of WinXP's dynamic disk stuff. The benefit to this would be less overhead, plus the benefits of each disk being able to work on a separate task whenever the data happens to be favorably distributed. I don't really know how to decide. Anybody got a reasoned opinion what choice I should make?
  9. <<I've heard alot af negative things about the DM+9's sound level. Despite it being a fluid disk it's supposede to be very noisy - louder than a non fluid WD disk.>> No. Not true in the real world. I have had the WD 200GB/8MB, the IBM 180GB/8MB, and the Maxtor 200GB/8MB side by side and listened. The Maxtor is without question much quieter than the WD. No contest.