geofftech

Excessive Storage.

Recommended Posts

For me excessive storage would be 120+GB. A 30gb drive is all I need. There is no such thing as 'excessive' storage. Every computer user needs a certain amount but the average is around 40gb which provides plenty of space for most people. But for the average person anything over 120GB is excessive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those of us who have a storage fetish, what would you say is an excessive amount of hard drive storage in a single desktop?

i think a nice 36/ 74 GB Raptor is all you need in a desktop.. with the GbE connection to the Fileserver with a couple of hundred gigs :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D it all depends on what u call excessive

hehe

our house connects thru a router to a shared 1mbit ntl connection and between our five computers we have

640+264 +120 +60+30 = 1114 Gb of storage

ive got 264 gb 1X74 gb raptor 1X80 gb hitachi 7k250 1x80 gb ibm 120gxp 1X30 gb maxtor

and everything is full

but ive got a lot of mp3s and a lot of dvd backups (dvd shrink needs 9 gb per dvd etc ) so i need a lot

i also do a lot of video capturing so that need a lot of space for uncompressed avi or huffyv avi files

JEREMY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for a single desktop it depends on your OS - for those that will not manage more than 2T, I'd say 2.1T would be excessive....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do video editing on my PC, and I have:

1 x 36 GB Seagate Cheetah 15K.3

2 x 80 GB Maxtor D740X

1 x 120 GB Western Digital Special Edition

1 x 250 GB Western Digital Special Edition

Total : 566 GB

And I'm almost out of space! I will probably buy a couple of 250 GB Western Digital Special Edition disks by the end of this month for a total of 1066 GB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything over a TB I'd consider excessive these days.

But there is a distinction that needs to be made. Someone's ONLY PC needsw to have enought storage for all their needs. 1TB works for this.

My workstation, however, has only 20GB in it (short-stroked raptors in RAID-0) while on the other side of the Gig-E connection is ~750GB. In a situation such as this, you need to take into account the total capacity of the network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, for a single desktop it depends on your OS - for those that will not manage more than 2T, I'd say 2.1T would be excessive....

I searched for limits on Windows OS with regard to this comment but couldn't find any informative hits, could you elaborate?

I have 1.5TB on my Desktop, but I plan to move this more to a 'server mode' once I get some RAM, PSU ,and case for a spare mobo I have. I am planning to add annother few drives to take the server to 2.1TB. The previous comment of course now concerns me :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, that limit is not per desktop (="system") but per volume so for example an NT NTFS volume with a limit of 2^32 sectors at 512 bytes per sector has a limit of 2T - sorry for the panic, would have added a stupid smiley but I hate those stupid smileys! :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am approaching 1T. 75% of it is full.

I plan to convert all my VHS tapes to digital. I will need a lot of hard disk space.

I will need 3T or more.

It would be nice to have everything duplicated. Let it be 6T then. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, that limit is not per desktop (="system") but per volume so for example an NT NTFS volume with a limit of 2^32 sectors at 512 bytes per sector has a limit of 2T - sorry for the panic, would have added a stupid smiley but I hate those stupid smileys! :angry:

couldn't you reformat with 2K cluster size?

How about drive path mounting other volumes? would one be able to go beyond 2GB then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

drizzt81,

How about drive path mounting other volumes? would one be able to go beyond 2GB then?

Now that is an interesting question. I would say yes though. After all each volume will still use its own filesystem.

Do well.

Jonathan Guilbault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My workstation, however, has only 20GB in it (short-stroked raptors in RAID-0)

OT: why would you do that?

Granted, the following is a bit extreme...and doesn't get you that much...but I'm O/C enough to do it anyway.

1. You get higher STR out of the first physical portion of a disk.

2. By restricting movement of the heads to just 20% of the drive makes seeks faster.

3. There were some other good reasons I can't remember. Do a search for "short stroke", IIRC by Mickey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The head is always confined to the area of the platter that contains data. It won't ever leave it. So 'shortstroking' is always in affect if you don't partition your disk and introduce artificial empty space inside the area of your data. Artificially limiting the amount of space you use has no affect on performance. In fact, theoretically it could hasten the development of excessive fragmentation as your disk fills.

Additionally, the drive always adds data from the outside in so you always use the fastest parts of the platters first.

Do well.

Jonathan Guilbault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Additionally, the drive always adds data from the outside in so you always use the fastest parts of the platters first.

Not always the case. Although this sounds like a great idea, many OSes (every MS OS I've worked on) stick stuff out in the boonies from time to time. Even going so far as marking files as belonging in the middle of a drive and putting them there during a defrag.

It may increase fragmentation, but I'm not sure how...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Congratulations on 2000 posts by the way!

Oh, cool B) thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a drive gets very close to being full, fragmentation increases because the low amount of remaining space prevents the OS from writing data in contiguous chunks more often. NTFS volumes also lose the ability to prevent fragmentation near maxiumum capacity because they are so limited in how they move stuff around. It is because of this that the common performance issues people associate with full drives exist. Because you have limited the disk space available to filesystem this problem will occur at a much lower capacity.

many OSes (every MS OS I've worked on) stick stuff out in the boonies from time to time. Even going so far as marking files as belonging in the middle of a drive and putting them there during a defrag.

I've never noticed this personally, but I have to admit that I would not be surprised to see it.

Do well.

Jonathan Guilbault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now