In my home network.
2 pc's and 1 tablet PC
All ran through router (wired and wireless)
Tablet does not need a redundant back-up

Main PC stores video and images
other PC stores images.

I lost 2 hardrives in 2 days!!!

Main PC has SCSI 160 card with 4 drives and 1 80gig IDE for backup
Secondary PC has 3 IDE drives, no back-up.

I want something that will keep 2 copies at the same time.
Can I convert my SCSI machine to something like RAID??

Or should I buy dedicated SATA drives with a raid controller and start
from scratch??

This would not be a major problem if I kept up with my DVD back-ups...
so I need something automatic and redundant.

thanks!

On 24/06/05 21:36, Fishhead wrote:
> In my home network.
> 2 pc's and 1 tablet PC
> All ran through router (wired and wireless)
> Tablet does not need a redundant back-up
> 
> Main PC stores video and images
> other PC stores images.
> 
> I lost 2 hardrives in 2 days!!!
> 
> Main PC has SCSI 160 card with 4 drives and 1 80gig IDE for backup
> Secondary PC has 3 IDE drives, no back-up.
> 
> I want something that will keep 2 copies at the same time.
> Can I convert my SCSI machine to something like RAID??

What OS are you running?
Most serious OS's nowadays have software RAID 1 facilities, exit MS.
Or you could get yourself a nice SCSI Hostadpter with RAID 
functionality, provided you can get the drivers for the OS you use.
That way you can keep the performance bonus SCSI gives you when you use 
4 drives.

> 
> Or should I buy dedicated SATA drives with a raid controller and start
> from scratch??

A definite step back IMHO.

> 
> This would not be a major problem if I kept up with my DVD back-ups...
> so I need something automatic and redundant.
> 
> thanks!
> 

Fishhead <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1119645419.150386.80770@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> In my home network.
> 2 pc's and 1 tablet PC
> All ran through router (wired and wireless)
> Tablet does not need a redundant back-up

> Main PC stores video and images
> other PC stores images.

> I lost 2 hardrives in 2 days!!!

On the same system PC ?  If it was, there's likely a reason for that.

> Main PC has SCSI 160 card with 4 drives and 1 80gig IDE
> for backup Secondary PC has 3 IDE drives, no back-up.

> I want something that will keep 2 copies at the same time.
> Can I convert my SCSI machine to something like RAID??

Yes, but thats got real downsides for backup.

It doesnt help if you need the backup for a virus
infection, user stupidity, fire, theft, flood etc.

> Or should I buy dedicated SATA drives with
> a raid controller and start from scratch??

Really depends on what you want to do about backup and raid.

> This would not be a major problem if I kept up with my DVD back-ups...
> so I need something automatic and redundant.

It isnt hard to do completely automated backup to a SATA drive.
That will fix the problem with a virus or user stupidity.

If its a removable drive, and you are prepared to take the
drive offsite and have another thats used when one is offsite,
that will fix the problem with fire/theft/flood etc too.

Not ideal if you are prone to dropping things tho. 

In message <1119645419.150386.80770@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, 
Fishhead <gregarpp@yahoo.com> writes
>In my home network.
>2 pc's and 1 tablet PC
>All ran through router (wired and wireless)
>Tablet does not need a redundant back-up
>
>Main PC stores video and images
>other PC stores images.
>
>I lost 2 hardrives in 2 days!!!
>
>Main PC has SCSI 160 card with 4 drives and 1 80gig IDE for backup
>Secondary PC has 3 IDE drives, no back-up.
>
>I want something that will keep 2 copies at the same time.
>Can I convert my SCSI machine to something like RAID??
>
>Or should I buy dedicated SATA drives with a raid controller and start
>from scratch??
>
>This would not be a major problem if I kept up with my DVD back-ups...
>so I need something automatic and redundant.
>
Try a UPS?

-- 
Jeremy Boden

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119645419.150386.80770@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> In my home network.
> 2 pc's and 1 tablet PC
> All ran through router (wired and wireless)
> Tablet does not need a redundant back-up
>
> Main PC stores video and images
> other PC stores images.
>
> I lost 2 hardrives in 2 days!!!
>
> Main PC has SCSI 160 card with 4 drives and 1 80gig IDE for backup
> Secondary PC has 3 IDE drives, no back-up.
>
> I want something that will keep 2 copies at the same time.
> Can I convert my SCSI machine to something like RAID??

RAID is not as substitute for backup.

> Or should I buy dedicated SATA drives with a raid controller and start
> from scratch??

SATA and RAID are two different things.  Yes you should use removable SATA
drives for backup and no they likely shouldn't be RAID.

> This would not be a major problem if I kept up with my DVD back-ups...

Use removable SATA drives instead of DVD for backups but DVDR backups will
work but are likely too small for convenient operation.

> so I need something automatic and redundant.

Actually you likely need neither.  You need redundant backups where one is
always offsite but that's different from redundant storage like RAID 1 or
RAID 5.  Having to manually initiate the backup nightly/periodically
shouldn't be too difficult.  However automating that process to run
automatically is feasible.

Use something like Acronis TrueImage to create compressend image backups of
the HDs.  Direct these image file[s] to removable SATA HDs in trays like
KingWin KF-83(~$30).  Get >=2 such SATA HDs and always keep one offsite.

"Arie Bant" <abant@mail.com> wrote in message
news:d9hro7$m1l$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
> On 24/06/05 21:36, Fishhead wrote:
> > In my home network.
> > 2 pc's and 1 tablet PC
> > All ran through router (wired and wireless)
> > Tablet does not need a redundant back-up
> >
> > Main PC stores video and images
> > other PC stores images.
> >
> > I lost 2 hardrives in 2 days!!!
> >
> > Main PC has SCSI 160 card with 4 drives and 1 80gig IDE for backup
> > Secondary PC has 3 IDE drives, no back-up.
> >
> > I want something that will keep 2 copies at the same time.
> > Can I convert my SCSI machine to something like RAID??
>
> What OS are you running?
> Most serious OS's nowadays have software RAID 1 facilities, exit MS.

NO,  RAID 1 is inexpensively available using MS OSs.

> Or you could get yourself a nice SCSI Hostadpter with RAID

SCSI is very expensive for this purpose.  [S]ATA RAID is much less expensive
and is the way to go IF realtime redundancy is needed.  Usually such
realtime redundancy is not needed in a home network.  HOWEVER even less
expensive backup IS needed.

> functionality, provided you can get the drivers for the OS you use.
> That way you can keep the performance bonus SCSI gives you when you use
> 4 drives.

What bonus does SCSI provide on a home network....none maybe?

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3i3a95Fjhm8gU1@individual.net...

> > This would not be a major problem if I kept up with my DVD back-ups...
> > so I need something automatic and redundant.
>
> It isnt hard to do completely automated backup to a SATA drive.

Speedo gets it wrong again.  Automated image backups to SATA drives are
easy.

> That will fix the problem with a virus or user stupidity.
>
> If its a removable drive, and you are prepared to take the
> drive offsite and have another thats used when one is offsite,
> that will fix the problem with fire/theft/flood etc too.
>
> Not ideal if you are prone to dropping things tho.

Use a shock mounted tray like a KingWin KF-83 and get a padded carrying
case.  That reduces the "drop threat" to very acceptable levels.
Non-spinning current HDs are not all that shock sensitive.  They are shipped
all over the world daily in two layers of bubble wrap with few problems.

"Jeremy Boden" <jeremy@jboden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1$RHV3DVZHvCFwf$@jboden.demon.co.uk...

> >This would not be a major problem if I kept up with my DVD back-ups...
> >so I need something automatic and redundant.
> >
> Try a UPS?

A UPS is NOT a replacement for redundant arrays like RAID 1or RAID 5.  A UPS
is NOT a replacement for backup.

I am doing video editiing and photo editing.
The SCSI drives are a big bonus!!!

My primary concern for backup (redundancy) is harddrive failure.

I keep my OS (winXP) and progam files and data on 3 separate drives.
I need a redundant real time back-up for my data drives

I figure my apps and WinXP are safe on single SCSI drives.  and if they
crash I can always reinstall from CD... (which isn't always a bad
thing)

How do I upgrade/replace my IDE data drives.
2 PC's with their own data.
I would like redundant data swapped between each PC.
My photos I work with on PC 1 are backed up on PC2
My video's I work with on PC 2 are backed up on PC1

SCSI SATA IDE RAID??  What do I need?

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119652542.781687.256230@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I am doing video editiing and photo editing.
> The SCSI drives are a big bonus!!!

NO!!  There is NO bonus when using SCSI over [S]ATA when doing video
editiing and photo editing.  The only place SCSI has an advantage is when
doing saturated small record random I/O like on a server.

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119652655.822081.197370@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> My primary concern for backup (redundancy) is harddrive failure.


The question is whether you concern is primarily for the last hour's/day's
work where RAID helps.   OR whether your bigger concern is losing the entire
contents of the HD where backup is the solution.  Until you are covered by a
good backup scheme any thought of RAID is a waste of time.

> I keep my OS (winXP) and progam files and data on 3 separate drives.
> I need a redundant real time back-up for my data drives

NO,  you need backup.  Then you can think about redundancy.

Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:gK%ue.1020253$w62.13579@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

>>> This would not be a major problem if I kept up with my DVD back-ups...
>>> so I need something automatic and redundant.

>> It isnt hard to do completely automated backup to a SATA drive.

> Speedo gets it wrong again.

We'll see...

> Automated image backups to SATA drives are easy.

Wot I said, fuckwit.

>> That will fix the problem with a virus or user stupidity.

>> If its a removable drive, and you are prepared to take the
>> drive offsite and have another thats used when one is offsite,
>> that will fix the problem with fire/theft/flood etc too.

>> Not ideal if you are prone to dropping things tho.

> Use a shock mounted tray like a KingWin KF-83 and get a padded
> carrying case.  That reduces the "drop threat" to very acceptable levels.

Depends on how much you drop it.

> Non-spinning current HDs are not all that shock sensitive.

Bullshit. Try dropping them onto a concrete floor some time.

> They are shipped all over the world daily in
> two layers of bubble wrap with few problems.

Pity about dropping the drive before it gets into that packing.

I have no back-up...
unless I start buring to DVD...

I could care less about an day/hour of work.
It is the total drive

Could I make 1 PC into a sort of Data server...  that would store and
back it all up.  (my wife could still use it to surf the web)

And then my main PC to do all the work???

Fishhead <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1119652655.822081.197370@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> My primary concern for backup (redundancy) is harddrive failure.

It does however make sense to have a solution
that handles the other problems as well.

> I keep my OS (winXP) and progam files and data on 3 separate drives.
> I need a redundant real time back-up for my data drives

Completely routine to automate backup to an extra drive.

The only real advantage of RAID1 is that in theory you can
come up faster after a drive failure. In practice its got its
own downsides, so theory and practice can have quite
a chasm between them and you are very vulnerable to
failure of whatever you use to do hardware RAID too.

Software RAID is better there, but standard XP doesnt do that.

On the other hand, automated backup isnt perfect either,
you can still lose a day's work if say its done overnight. 

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119653235.395613.160350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I figure my apps and WinXP are safe on single SCSI drives.  and if they
> crash I can always reinstall from CD... (which isn't always a bad
> thing)

Usually a very labor intensive and therefore expensive proposition.  Keep a
regular image backup of the OS HD as you'll find that much valuable setup,
update, configuration and tuning is kept there.

> How do I upgrade/replace my IDE data drives.
> 2 PC's with their own data.
> I would like redundant data swapped between each PC.
> My photos I work with on PC 1 are backed up on PC2
> My video's I work with on PC 2 are backed up on PC1
>
> SCSI SATA IDE RAID??  What do I need?


You need nightly/periodic backups to a removable media and keep a copy
offsite.  The best option there is a couple of removable [S]ATA HDs in shock
mounted trays like KingWin KF-83.  Keeping two copies on different PCs in
the same room covers VERY FEW threats.

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119653538.846167.225170@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I have no back-up...
> unless I start buring to DVD...
>
> I could care less about an day/hour of work.
> It is the total drive

EXACTLY what I've been telling you.

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119653693.481623.53210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Could I make 1 PC into a sort of Data server...  that would store and
> back it all up.  (my wife could still use it to surf the web)

Why do you insist on avoiding the obvious solution.. REDUNDANT OFFSITE
BACKUPS.

The data drives that failed were from each PC.
These were both older (cheap) large capcity drives.
They were both IDE

My SCSI drives are older, and have never had problems.
The SCSI drives store WinXP and program files (one drive for each)
Large SCSI drives are expensive, so I chose IDE for storage.
SCIS is faster, so I have 15k rpm (smaller drives) for  WinXP and
program files.

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119652799.031453.280850@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The data drives that failed were from each PC.
> These were both older (cheap) large capcity drives.
> They were both IDE
>
> My SCSI drives are older, and have never had problems.


They will eventually. BUT that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

> The SCSI drives store WinXP and program files (one drive for each)
> Large SCSI drives are expensive, so I chose IDE for storage.
> SCIS is faster, so I have 15k rpm (smaller drives)

Triple cost small 15K RPM SCSI HDs only outperform single top [S]ATA HDs by
a small amount in video/photo editing performance.  [S]ATA RAID 0 is big and
inexpensive and blows a single expensive 15K RPM SCSI HD away in video
editing and photo editing performance.    You bought the myth of SCSI.

The threat I am worried about is HD failure..
Why wouldn't 2 PC's cover this??

Maybe cause my SCSI drives are 15k and my IDE are 7.2k

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Yo0ve.1020459$w62.661905@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119652799.031453.280850@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > The data drives that failed were from each PC.
> > These were both older (cheap) large capcity drives.
> > They were both IDE
>
> > The SCSI drives store WinXP and program files (one drive for each)
> > Large SCSI drives are expensive, so I chose IDE for storage.
> > SCIS is faster, so I have 15k rpm (smaller drives)
>
> Triple cost small 15K RPM SCSI HDs only outperform single top [S]ATA HDs by
> a small amount in video/photo editing performance.  [S]ATA RAID 0 is big and
> inexpensive and blows a single expensive 15K RPM SCSI HD away in video
> editing and photo editing performance.    You bought the myth of SCSI.
>
Clueless. He uses SCSI for the OS, not video.

The prefered configuration for video/audio production is independent 7200 drives, not RAID 0.

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119654691.299790.184170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The threat I am worried about is HD failure..
> Why wouldn't 2 PC's cover this??

Common malware(virus/trojan/hacker/etc.) attack or theft or physical
calamity to the room including lightening/power surge are primary threats to
the HDs.  OFFSITE BACKUP covers all these AND it covers a HD failure.

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119654770.229641.188760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Maybe cause my SCSI drives are 15k and my IDE are 7.2k


Late model top 7200K RPM [S]ATA are faster in single user workstation
including video/photo editing usage than an early 15K RPM SCSI HD.  Then
there's the 10K RPM [S]ATA Raptor.

Fishhead <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1119653538.846167.225170@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> I have no back-up...
> unless I start buring to DVD...

> I could care less about an day/hour of work.
> It is the total drive

Then completely automated backup to another drive is the answer.

Best done overnight because otherwise the backup will
be a significant load on the system while you are using it.

Best done to a SATA drive because you can choose to
unplug that, hot, if you say want to provide a bit more
security against theft of the system when you are out etc.

If you are confident that you cant be robbed and that the risk
of fire and flood are very low, an internal drive would be fine.

RAID is no use to you, its more hassle than its worth. 

Fishhead <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1119652799.031453.280850@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> The data drives that failed were from each PC.
> These were both older (cheap) large capcity drives.
> They were both IDE

OK, then it was likely bad luck that you lost 2 in 4 days.

> My SCSI drives are older, and have never had problems.
> The SCSI drives store WinXP and program files (one drive for each)
> Large SCSI drives are expensive, so I chose IDE for storage.
> SCIS is faster, so I have 15k rpm (smaller drives) for  WinXP
> and program files.

You dont actually need the higher speed for XP and program files.

"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9i4kb01qbc@enews4.newsguy.com...
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:Yo0ve.1020459$w62.661905@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1119652799.031453.280850@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > The data drives that failed were from each PC.
> > > These were both older (cheap) large capcity drives.
> > > They were both IDE
> >
> > > The SCSI drives store WinXP and program files (one drive for each)
> > > Large SCSI drives are expensive, so I chose IDE for storage.
> > > SCIS is faster, so I have 15k rpm (smaller drives)
> >
> > Triple cost small 15K RPM SCSI HDs only outperform single top [S]ATA HDs
by
> > a small amount in video/photo editing performance.  [S]ATA RAID 0 is big
and
> > inexpensive and blows a single expensive 15K RPM SCSI HD away in video
> > editing and photo editing performance.    You bought the myth of SCSI.
> >
> Clueless. He uses SCSI for the OS, not video.

Gisin troll gets it wrong as usual.  Expensive SCSI for the OS drive in
single user workstation usage contributes little to performance over an
[S]ATA HD.

> The prefered configuration for video/audio production is independent 7200
drives, not RAID 0.

Even idiots get a true/false right half the time.

Fishhead <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1119653693.481623.53210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Could I make 1 PC into a sort of Data server...  that would store
> and back it all up.  (my wife could still use it to surf the web)

Yes, that would be fine.

> And then my main PC to do all the work???

Yes. 

Your replies are great...  but there are no off site locations.

Where is off-site going to be?
Your house?
A hole in my background?

I only own one location.... Thats my house.

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119656891.110140.18920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Your replies are great...  but there are no off site locations.
>
> Where is off-site going to be?

Car trunk.  Relative's/friend's house.  Desk/locker at work. Storage unit.
ETC.

> Your house?
> A hole in my background?
>
> I only own one location.... Thats my house.
>

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:iX0ve.1020626$w62.687293@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d9i4kb01qbc@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:Yo0ve.1020459$w62.661905@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > Triple cost small 15K RPM SCSI HDs only outperform single top [S]ATA HDs
> by
> > > a small amount in video/photo editing performance.  [S]ATA RAID 0 is big
> and
> > > inexpensive and blows a single expensive 15K RPM SCSI HD away in video
> > > editing and photo editing performance.    You bought the myth of SCSI.
> > >
> > Clueless. He uses SCSI for the OS, not video.
>
> Gisin troll gets it wrong as usual.  Expensive SCSI for the OS drive in
> single user workstation usage contributes little to performance over an
> [S]ATA HD.
>
I didn't say anything about perfomance. But 15K is faster than any IDE for power users.

Same old troll song. Clueless as ever.

> I figure my apps and WinXP are safe on single SCSI drives.  and if they
> crash I can always reinstall from CD... (which isn't always a bad
> thing)
>
> How do I upgrade/replace my IDE data drives.
> 2 PC's with their own data.
> I would like redundant data swapped between each PC.
> My photos I work with on PC 1 are backed up on PC2
> My video's I work with on PC 2 are backed up on PC1
>
> SCSI SATA IDE RAID??  What do I need?

You need a network connection between those two PCs and
enough storage (on each) to keep a copy of other PC data.
You might need to run them continously and schedule
automatic data transfer at night (XCOPY might be enough).
Thats all.

They are networked together.
And they (will) have plenty of space

I always thought the access times on the SCSI drives were the lowest..

And then there is the low CPU use.

> They are networked together.
> And they (will) have plenty of space

Then, just create backup scripts and schedule them.

"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9i8s7020ii@enews4.newsguy.com...

> > Gisin troll gets it wrong as usual.  Expensive SCSI for the OS drive in
> > single user workstation usage contributes little to performance over an
> > [S]ATA HD.
> >
> I didn't say anything about perfomance. But 15K is faster than any IDE for
power users.

A triple cost late model 15kRPM SCSI HD is a little faster BUT the much less
expensive dual drive [S]ATA RAID 0 is faster than any single drive 15K RPM
solution.

> Same old troll song. Clueless as ever.
>
>
>

Fishhead <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1119666156.883624.278350@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> I always thought the access times on the SCSI drives were the lowest..

> And then there is the low CPU use.

Myth with modern IDE drives with DMA enabled. 

The CPU use is probably better now.
But DMA has nothing to do with SCSI's faster access times.

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119666156.883624.278350@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I always thought the access times on the SCSI drives were the lowest..


Higher RPM gives faster access time.  Access time is only a part of a HD's
performance.   Same RPM SCSI doesn't give significantly better performance
in single user workstation usage.   SCSI excels in saturated server I/O
because of the onboard command queuing.  You have listed many of the basic
elements of the SCSI myth that has been perpetrated on the public by SCSI
zealots who derive income from SCSI configurations.

> And then there is the low CPU use.


No lower than current [S]ATA....another SCSI myth(flat out lie)

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119668544.194432.175180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> The CPU use is probably better now.
> But DMA has nothing to do with SCSI's faster access times.

What does have to do with myths?

I now have all SCSI in 1 PC and all IDE in the other.
They have the same MB, CPU,  same memory and same OS.

My SCSI is much faster, and is not bogged down in photo shop.

The IDE drivers are UDMA133 type 7200 RPM
My SCSI is 160 type 15k RPM

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119668958.790008.8400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I now have all SCSI in 1 PC and all IDE in the other.
> They have the same MB, CPU,  same memory and same OS.
>
> My SCSI is much faster, and is not bogged down in photo shop.
>
> The IDE drivers are UDMA133 type 7200 RPM

Try an SATA Raptor and you wont be able to sense any performance difference
between the two machines simply by using them.

> My SCSI is 160 type 15k RPM

Any such statement is meaningless without specifying drive model.

So there is no reason to upgrade the SCSI drives??

When I am in photoshop, I might open 50 files at once, 20meg each.
These run in batches, the SCSI system blows the IDE away.

Fujitsu MAM3367MC
Size: 36.7 GB Internal Drive
Speed: 15000 rpm
Access Time: 3.5 ms
Interface: Ultra160 SCSI

Western Digital SATA Raptor 74GB
apacity: 74 GB
RPM: 10,000
Interface: SATA
Cache: 8 MB
Read Seek: 5.2 ms
Write Seek: 5.9 ms
Latency: 2.99 ms

And it seems the price per MB is a bit cheaper for the SCSI...
(compared to the Raptor)

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:XP3ve.355823$cg1.172110@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Higher RPM gives faster access time.  Access time is only a part of a HD's
> performance.   Same RPM SCSI doesn't give significantly better performance
> in single user workstation usage.   SCSI excels in saturated server I/O
> because of the onboard command queuing.  You have listed many of the basic
> elements of the SCSI myth that has been perpetrated on the public by SCSI
> zealots who derive income from SCSI configurations.
>
Just like the deathstar (75GXP) myth, right Ron?
Remember the "IBM slime cult" that was responsible for that mth?

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119669424.225998.20720@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> So there is no reason to upgrade the SCSI drives??

No cost efficient reason.

> When I am in photoshop, I might open 50 files at once, 20meg each.
> These run in batches, the SCSI system blows the IDE away.

Then get a WDC Raptor or two(RAID 0).

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119669508.723878.138410@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Fujitsu MAM3367MC
> Size: 36.7 GB Internal Drive
> Speed: 15000 rpm
> Access Time: 3.5 ms
> Interface: Ultra160 SCSI

An older slower model and how much did you pay when it first came out?
The Maxtor Atlas 15K II is the hot one now.

What model 7200 RPM ATA drive?

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119669789.425569.63870@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Western Digital SATA Raptor 74GB
> apacity: 74 GB
> RPM: 10,000
> Interface: SATA
> Cache: 8 MB
> Read Seek: 5.2 ms
> Write Seek: 5.9 ms
> Latency: 2.99 ms

Sustained transfer rate at the beginning for the SATA Raptor is 72MB/sec.
The SCSI MAM3367MC transfer rate at the beginning is 57 MB/sec.

Consider the cost of current models of each and don't forget to include the
cost of the controllers.

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119670161.098629.176630@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> And it seems the price per MB is a bit cheaper for the SCSI...
> (compared to the Raptor)


NO!!

Gisin lunatic rantings always the same as so many have noticed..


"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9ijqq02e9g@enews4.newsguy.com...

Fishhead <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1119668544.194432.175180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> The CPU use is probably better now.

No probably about it.

> But DMA has nothing to do with SCSI's faster access times.

I didnt comment on access times.

And access times arent relevant for your machine use anyway.

In article <1119645419.150386.80770@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, 
gregarpp@yahoo.com says...

> In my home network.
> 2 pc's and 1 tablet PC
> All ran through router (wired and wireless)
> Tablet does not need a redundant back-up
> 
> Main PC stores video and images
> other PC stores images.
> 
> I lost 2 hardrives in 2 days!!!
> 
> Main PC has SCSI 160 card with 4 drives and 1 80gig IDE for backup
> Secondary PC has 3 IDE drives, no back-up.

	Not good.

	Suggest tape-based system, either DLT-IV or SuperDLT.

	Keep the peace(es).



-- 
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute.
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR, 
kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com
"If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped
with surreal ports?"

"Dr. Anton T. Squeegee" <SpammersAreVermin@dev.null> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d269d853678cbd1989766@localhost...
> In article <1119645419.150386.80770@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> gregarpp@yahoo.com says...
>
> > In my home network.
> > 2 pc's and 1 tablet PC
> > All ran through router (wired and wireless)
> > Tablet does not need a redundant back-up
> >
> > Main PC stores video and images
> > other PC stores images.
> >
> > I lost 2 hardrives in 2 days!!!
> >
> > Main PC has SCSI 160 card with 4 drives and 1 80gig IDE for backup
> > Secondary PC has 3 IDE drives, no back-up.
>
> Not good.
>
> Suggest tape-based system, either DLT-IV or SuperDLT.

Forget tape.  Use removable SATA HDs for backup on modest configurations.

Dr. Anton T. Squeegee <SpammersAreVermin@dev.null> wrote
in message news:MPG.1d269d853678cbd1989766@localhost...
> gregarpp@yahoo.com wrote

>> In my home network.
>> 2 pc's and 1 tablet PC
>> All ran through router (wired and wireless)
>> Tablet does not need a redundant back-up

>> Main PC stores video and images
>> other PC stores images.

>> I lost 2 hardrives in 2 days!!!

>> Main PC has SCSI 160 card with 4 drives and 1 80gig IDE
>> for backup Secondary PC has 3 IDE drives, no back-up.

> Not good.

> Suggest tape-based system, either DLT-IV or SuperDLT.

WAY past their useby date for personal workstations.

> Keep the peace(es).

Piss orf.

U comp.periphs.scsi Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> prica:
>> Suggest tape-based system, either DLT-IV or SuperDLT.

> Forget tape.  Use removable SATA HDs for backup on modest configurations.

Never do that! Tapes are tapes, and are used for backup... Hotswap drives
can't be used for backup (they could simply die much easier than any
tape)...


-- 
U ribarnici se danima debeli sapuno cvokoce.  By runf

                                  Damir Lukic, calypso@_MAKNIOVO_fly.srk.fer.hr
                                  a member of hr.comp.hardver FAQ-team

<calypso@fly.srk.fer.hr.invalid> wrote in message
news:d9je7c$4uu$1@bagan.srce.hr...
> U comp.periphs.scsi Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> prica:
> >> Suggest tape-based system, either DLT-IV or SuperDLT.
>
> > Forget tape.  Use removable SATA HDs for backup on modest
configurations.
>
> Never do that! Tapes are tapes, and are used for backup...

No more,  that's old think.

> Hotswap drives
> can't be used for backup (they could simply die much easier than any
> tape)...

Nonsense.

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:YY3ve.1021512$w62.38844@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1119668958.790008.8400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > I now have all SCSI in 1 PC and all IDE in the other.
> > They have the same MB, CPU,  same memory and same OS.
> > 
> > My SCSI is much faster, and is not bogged down in photo shop.
> > 
> > The IDE drivers are UDMA133 type 7200 RPM
> 
> Try an SATA Raptor and you wont be able to sense any performance difference
> between the two machines simply by using them.
> 
> > My SCSI is 160 type 15k RPM
> 
> Any such statement is meaningless without specifying drive model.

Nonsense. 
It says that it's doing better than 15-17MB/s and less than 
30-35MB/s sustained (against the better than ~30MB/s and 
less than ~60MB/s sustained for the IDE).

U comp.periphs.scsi Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> prica:
>> Never do that! Tapes are tapes, and are used for backup...

> No more,  that's old think.

Don't be so sure... Tape backup is a must for every serious backup
solution... For home use it might be not be a good solution (price!), but
for anything serious, tapes are unreplacable... 

>> Hotswap drives can't be used for backup (they could simply die much
>> easier than any tape)...

> Nonsense.

Oh yeah? Check the avg. time of life for a HDD and for a tape... Like I
said, tapes are for seriuos backups... Every big company uses tape backups,
and some of them would be really glad to have a nuclear-resistant
underground facility to put those tapes...


-- 
"Pijans li krekero bicuje ?" upita dostavljaca pipa Esmeraldau vjesu. 
 "Nisam ja nikog bombardiro !" rece banderao hoce "Ja samo cizmao jede slomljenm !"  By runf

                                  Damir Lukic, calypso@_MAKNIOVO_fly.srk.fer.hr
                                  a member of hr.comp.hardver FAQ-team

calypso@fly.srk.fer.hr.invalid wrote:

> U comp.periphs.scsi Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> prica:
>>> Suggest tape-based system, either DLT-IV or SuperDLT.
> 
>> Forget tape.  Use removable SATA HDs for backup on modest configurations.
> 
> Never do that! Tapes are tapes, and are used for backup... Hotswap drives
> can't be used for backup (they could simply die much easier than any
> tape)...

Of course they can. So they die. So do tapes. So what?  When one dies you
toss it and get a new one just like you do with tapes.  Until you reach a
certain amount of required storage, using disks as disposable media is more
cost-effective than a tape drive and tapes.


-- 
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

calypso@fly.srk.fer.hr.invalid wrote:

> U comp.periphs.scsi Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> prica:
>>> Never do that! Tapes are tapes, and are used for backup...
> 
>> No more,  that's old think.
> 
> Don't be so sure... Tape backup is a must for every serious backup
> solution... For home use it might be not be a good solution (price!), but
> for anything serious, tapes are unreplacable...

Define "serious".

>>> Hotswap drives can't be used for backup (they could simply die much
>>> easier than any tape)...
> 
>> Nonsense.
> 
> Oh yeah? Check the avg. time of life for a HDD and for a tape...

Since you bring that up, care to provide some numbers?  No?  I didn't think
so.  Personally I've experienced more failures of tapes and drives than I
have of hard disks, and trust them less.

Regardless, if the "time of life" exceeds 30 days by a reasonable margin
then the medium is adequate for _backup_.  30 days is a very, very old
backup--beyond that for most purposes for which _backup_ is required there
is no point in bothering.  Any disk that routinely failed in less than a
couple of years would end up getting the manufacturer sued, so they pass
the 30-day test.

Beyond 30 days or so you're talking about archiving, which is different from
backup.  Neither tape nor magnetic disk is particularly well suited for
archiving, although DLT has been used and is developing a track record.

> Like I 
> said, tapes are for seriuos backups... Every big company uses tape
> backups, and some of them would be really glad to have a nuclear-resistant
> underground facility to put those tapes...

Every big company has a large amount of data to back up.  In their situation
tape is clearly cost-effective.

-- 
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:42bd51c1$0$21024$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:YY3ve.1021512$w62.38844@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> >
> > > My SCSI is 160 type 15k RPM
> >
> > Any such statement is meaningless without specifying drive model.
>
> Nonsense.
> It says that it's doing better than 15-17MB/s and less than
> 30-35MB/s sustained (against the better than ~30MB/s and
> less than ~60MB/s sustained for the IDE).

He said Fuji MAM. That's a U160 drive that does over 50MB/s.

I would never downgrade mine to a Raptor.

In message <d9jt9v12t08@news3.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke 
<jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> writes
>calypso@fly.srk.fer.hr.invalid wrote:
>
>> U comp.periphs.scsi Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> prica:
>>>> Never do that! Tapes are tapes, and are used for backup...
>>
>>> No more,  that's old think.
>>
>> Don't be so sure... Tape backup is a must for every serious backup
>> solution... For home use it might be not be a good solution (price!), but
>> for anything serious, tapes are unreplacable...
>
>Define "serious".
>
>>>> Hotswap drives can't be used for backup (they could simply die much
>>>> easier than any tape)...
>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>
>> Oh yeah? Check the avg. time of life for a HDD and for a tape...
>
>Since you bring that up, care to provide some numbers?  No?  I didn't think
>so.  Personally I've experienced more failures of tapes and drives than I
>have of hard disks, and trust them less.
>
>Regardless, if the "time of life" exceeds 30 days by a reasonable margin
>then the medium is adequate for _backup_.  30 days is a very, very old
>backup--beyond that for most purposes for which _backup_ is required there
>is no point in bothering.  Any disk that routinely failed in less than a
>couple of years would end up getting the manufacturer sued, so they pass
>the 30-day test.
>
>Beyond 30 days or so you're talking about archiving, which is different from
>backup.  Neither tape nor magnetic disk is particularly well suited for
>archiving, although DLT has been used and is developing a track record.
>
>> Like I
>> said, tapes are for seriuos backups... Every big company uses tape
>> backups, and some of them would be really glad to have a nuclear-resistant
>> underground facility to put those tapes...
>
>Every big company has a large amount of data to back up.  In their situation
>tape is clearly cost-effective.
>

If you can't achieve a reliable 6+ years then you could find that your 
companies tax situation is in very deep shit.

-- 
Jeremy Boden

Learn to reply instead of starting a new thread.

Jeremy Boden wrote:

> In message <d9jt9v12t08@news3.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
> <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> writes
>>calypso@fly.srk.fer.hr.invalid wrote:
>>
>>> U comp.periphs.scsi Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> prica:
>>>>> Never do that! Tapes are tapes, and are used for backup...
>>>
>>>> No more,  that's old think.
>>>
>>> Don't be so sure... Tape backup is a must for every serious backup
>>> solution... For home use it might be not be a good solution (price!),
>>> but for anything serious, tapes are unreplacable...
>>
>>Define "serious".
>>
>>>>> Hotswap drives can't be used for backup (they could simply die much
>>>>> easier than any tape)...
>>>
>>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>> Oh yeah? Check the avg. time of life for a HDD and for a tape...
>>
>>Since you bring that up, care to provide some numbers?  No?  I didn't
>>think
>>so.  Personally I've experienced more failures of tapes and drives than I
>>have of hard disks, and trust them less.
>>
>>Regardless, if the "time of life" exceeds 30 days by a reasonable margin
>>then the medium is adequate for _backup_.  30 days is a very, very old
>>backup--beyond that for most purposes for which _backup_ is required there
>>is no point in bothering.  Any disk that routinely failed in less than a
>>couple of years would end up getting the manufacturer sued, so they pass
>>the 30-day test.
>>
>>Beyond 30 days or so you're talking about archiving, which is different
>>from
>>backup.  Neither tape nor magnetic disk is particularly well suited for
>>archiving, although DLT has been used and is developing a track record.
>>
>>> Like I
>>> said, tapes are for seriuos backups... Every big company uses tape
>>> backups, and some of them would be really glad to have a
>>> nuclear-resistant underground facility to put those tapes...
>>
>>Every big company has a large amount of data to back up.  In their
>>situation tape is clearly cost-effective.
>>
> 
> If you can't achieve a reliable 6+ years then you could find that your
> companies tax situation is in very deep shit.

Which has what relevance?
 

-- 
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

<calypso@fly.srk.fer.hr.invalid> wrote in
message news:d9je7c$4uu$1@bagan.srce.hr...
>Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>> Dr. Anton T. Squeegee <SpammersAreVermin@dev.null> wrote

>>> Suggest tape-based system, either DLT-IV or SuperDLT.

>> Forget tape.  Use removable SATA HDs
>> for backup on modest configurations.

> Never do that! Tapes are tapes, and are used for backup...
> Hotswap drives can't be used for backup (they
> could simply die much easier than any tape)...

Pig ignorant drivel. 

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:42bd51c1$0$21024$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:YY3ve.1021512$w62.38844@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> > "Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119668958.790008.8400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > I now have all SCSI in 1 PC and all IDE in the other.
> > > They have the same MB, CPU,  same memory and same OS.
> > >
> > > My SCSI is much faster, and is not bogged down in photo shop.
> > >
> > > The IDE drivers are UDMA133 type 7200 RPM
> >
> > Try an SATA Raptor and you wont be able to sense any performance
difference
> > between the two machines simply by using them.
> >
> > > My SCSI is 160 type 15k RPM
> >
> > Any such statement is meaningless without specifying drive model.
>
> Nonsense.
> It says that it's doing better than 15-17MB/s and less than
> 30-35MB/s sustained (against the better than ~30MB/s and
> less than ~60MB/s sustained for the IDE).

HUH!

<calypso@fly.srk.fer.hr.invalid> wrote in message
news:d9jpgd$lup$2@bagan.srce.hr...
> U comp.periphs.scsi Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> prica:
> >> Never do that! Tapes are tapes, and are used for backup...
>
> > No more,  that's old think.
>
> Don't be so sure... Tape backup is a must for every serious backup
> solution...


Not any more.

> For home use it might be not be a good solution (price!), but
> for anything serious, tapes are unreplacable...


Guess again.

> >> Hotswap drives can't be used for backup (they could simply die much
> >> easier than any tape)...
>
> > Nonsense.
>
> Oh yeah? Check the avg. time of life for a HDD and for a tape... Like I
> said, tapes are for seriuos backups...


Now you expose your deficiencies.  Archive storage and backup are two
different things.

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:d9jrhj11hou@news1.newsguy.com...
> calypso@fly.srk.fer.hr.invalid wrote:
>
> > U comp.periphs.scsi Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> prica:
> >>> Suggest tape-based system, either DLT-IV or SuperDLT.
> >
> >> Forget tape.  Use removable SATA HDs for backup on modest
configurations.
> >
> > Never do that! Tapes are tapes, and are used for backup... Hotswap
drives
> > can't be used for backup (they could simply die much easier than any
> > tape)...
>
> Of course they can. So they die. So do tapes. So what?  When one dies you
> toss it and get a new one just like you do with tapes.  Until you reach a
> certain amount of required storage, using disks as disposable media


Although your heart is in the right place the phrase "disks as disposable
media" is off/misleading and ruins the point.

> is more
> cost-effective than a tape drive and tapes.

"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d9jtqr01k7d@enews2.newsguy.com
> "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message news:42bd51c1$0$21024$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> > "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:YY3ve.1021512$w62.38844@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> > > 
> > > > My SCSI is 160 type 15k RPM
> > > 
> > > Any such statement is meaningless without specifying drive model.
> > 
> > Nonsense.
> > It says that it's doing better than 15-17MB/s and less than
> > 30-35MB/s sustained (against the better than ~30MB/s and
> > less than ~60MB/s sustained for the IDE).
> 
> He said Fuji MAM. 

Yes, later on.

> That's a U160 drive that does over 50MB/s.

Right.
That drive came out late 2001, before SPI-4 rev1 -the one that covers U320- 
came into being (May, 2002). Later models probably have U320 interfaces.

> 
> I would never downgrade mine to a Raptor.

U comp.periphs.scsi J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> prica:
>> Don't be so sure... Tape backup is a must for every serious backup
>> solution... For home use it might be not be a good solution (price!), but
>> for anything serious, tapes are unreplacable...

> Define "serious".

Banks, government, big companies (like multinational ones - Mobil,
Coca-Cola, GMC, Pliva, T-Com, etc)...

> Beyond 30 days or so you're talking about archiving, which is different from
> backup.  Neither tape nor magnetic disk is particularly well suited for
> archiving, although DLT has been used and is developing a track record.

OK, what's the difference between archiving and backup? Backup is temporary
or?

> Every big company has a large amount of data to back up.  In their situation
> tape is clearly cost-effective.

How so? Look at the capacity of drives, and compare to tapes... One LTO tape
drive (200/400GB) costs around 3000EUR, one LTO 200/400GB tape costs
120EUR... One 200GB drive costs under 100EUR... Other tape drives (like SONY
AIT, Tandberg DLT) with such capacities (300/600 and 500/1000GB) cost even
more, and tapes are much more expensive... So, how so that those are used
instead of 'cheaper' drives? Why produce something so expensive when you
have much cheaper solution... Answer that, please... For low-capacity tapes,
it's OK, they're a cheaper solution for lower capacity backups, but
enterprise solutions are enterprise solutions, and there is no room for
games here...


-- 
"Pedofilans li drugaru nabiju ?" upita studento kolje Zidovu pozdravlju. 
 "Ne znam ja nista !" rece Bosanaca kopa "Ja samo blatoog pusija bodljikavm !"  By runf

                                  Damir Lukic, calypso@_MAKNIOVO_fly.srk.fer.hr
                                  a member of hr.comp.hardver FAQ-team

calypso@fly.srk.fer.hr.invalid wrote:

> U comp.periphs.scsi J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> prica:
>>> Don't be so sure... Tape backup is a must for every serious backup
>>> solution... For home use it might be not be a good solution (price!),
>>> but for anything serious, tapes are unreplacable...
> 
>> Define "serious".
> 
> Banks, government, big companies (like multinational ones - Mobil,
> Coca-Cola, GMC, Pliva, T-Com, etc)...

And for their volume tape is cost effective.  But the person responsible for
backup in a company that size would not be asking questions here.

>> Beyond 30 days or so you're talking about archiving, which is different
>> from
>> backup.  Neither tape nor magnetic disk is particularly well suited for
>> archiving, although DLT has been used and is developing a track record.
> 
> OK, what's the difference between archiving and backup? Backup is
> temporary or?

Backup is short term--its purpose is to get your data back online after a
system failure or loss.  In an ideal world it has data up to the minute. 
In the real world close of business yesterday is that best that can be done
without a large budget.  The only time one would want to restore a backup
older than that would be if the latest backup was corrupted somehow or the
media wad dead.

>> Every big company has a large amount of data to back up.  In their
>> situation tape is clearly cost-effective.
> 
> How so? Look at the capacity of drives, and compare to tapes... One LTO
> tape drive (200/400GB) costs around 3000EUR, one LTO 200/400GB tape costs
> 120EUR... One 200GB drive costs under 100EUR...

Someone is ripping you off, dude.  Or else the taxes are structured to favor
disk for some reason.  The going price for an LTO 200/400 drive in the US
is $2K, and the tapes are $45 a piece, which means that they cost the same
as 40 gig disks.  For small backups the LTO is not cost effective, but a
point is reached where the lower cost of the tapes and the amortized cost
of the drive work out to less than the cost of disks.


> Other tape drives (like 
> SONY AIT,

<making sign of cross>

> Tandberg DLT

Is Tandberg finally making DLT?  Try Quantum.

> ) with such capacities (300/600 and 500/1000GB) cost  
> even more,

SDLT 600 drives go for 50% more than LTO, which is reasonable considering
that they have 50% more capacity.  The tapes seem to be going for about
$100US, which is considerably cheaper than 300 gig of disk.  So again if
the volume is large enough to allow the cost of the drive to be amortized
then the tape becomes less costly to run.

> and tapes are much more expensive... So, how so that those are 
> used instead of 'cheaper' drives?

Because the drives are not cheaper when the storage volume is above a
certain level.  At least not in a free market.

> Why produce something so expensive when 
> you have much cheaper solution... Answer that, please... 


Already did.

> For low-capacity 
> tapes, it's OK, they're a cheaper solution for lower capacity backups,

What "lower capacity tapes"?

> but 
> enterprise solutions are enterprise solutions, and there is no room for
> games here...

So who was asking for an "enterprise solution"?


-- 
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

You analyze HD vs tape backup on the basis of pure cost.  The best analysis
is on the basis of price-performance.  Performance also includes convenience
as well as speed.  Those performance factors raise the HD solution well in
front of tape even at equal dollars for modest configurations.

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:d9leh40bjh@news2.newsguy.com...
> calypso@fly.srk.fer.hr.invalid wrote:
>
> > U comp.periphs.scsi J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> prica:
> >>> Don't be so sure... Tape backup is a must for every serious backup
> >>> solution... For home use it might be not be a good solution (price!),
> >>> but for anything serious, tapes are unreplacable...
> >
> >> Define "serious".
> >
> > Banks, government, big companies (like multinational ones - Mobil,
> > Coca-Cola, GMC, Pliva, T-Com, etc)...
>
> And for their volume tape is cost effective.  But the person responsible
for
> backup in a company that size would not be asking questions here.
>
> >> Beyond 30 days or so you're talking about archiving, which is different
> >> from
> >> backup.  Neither tape nor magnetic disk is particularly well suited for
> >> archiving, although DLT has been used and is developing a track record.
> >
> > OK, what's the difference between archiving and backup? Backup is
> > temporary or?
>
> Backup is short term--its purpose is to get your data back online after a
> system failure or loss.  In an ideal world it has data up to the minute.
> In the real world close of business yesterday is that best that can be
done
> without a large budget.  The only time one would want to restore a backup
> older than that would be if the latest backup was corrupted somehow or the
> media wad dead.
>
> >> Every big company has a large amount of data to back up.  In their
> >> situation tape is clearly cost-effective.
> >
> > How so? Look at the capacity of drives, and compare to tapes... One LTO
> > tape drive (200/400GB) costs around 3000EUR, one LTO 200/400GB tape
costs
> > 120EUR... One 200GB drive costs under 100EUR...
>
> Someone is ripping you off, dude.  Or else the taxes are structured to
favor
> disk for some reason.  The going price for an LTO 200/400 drive in the US
> is $2K, and the tapes are $45 a piece, which means that they cost the same
> as 40 gig disks.  For small backups the LTO is not cost effective, but a
> point is reached where the lower cost of the tapes and the amortized cost
> of the drive work out to less than the cost of disks.
>
>
> > Other tape drives (like
> > SONY AIT,
>
> <making sign of cross>
>
> > Tandberg DLT
>
> Is Tandberg finally making DLT?  Try Quantum.
>
> > ) with such capacities (300/600 and 500/1000GB) cost
> > even more,
>
> SDLT 600 drives go for 50% more than LTO, which is reasonable considering
> that they have 50% more capacity.  The tapes seem to be going for about
> $100US, which is considerably cheaper than 300 gig of disk.  So again if
> the volume is large enough to allow the cost of the drive to be amortized
> then the tape becomes less costly to run.
>
> > and tapes are much more expensive... So, how so that those are
> > used instead of 'cheaper' drives?
>
> Because the drives are not cheaper when the storage volume is above a
> certain level.  At least not in a free market.
>
> > Why produce something so expensive when
> > you have much cheaper solution... Answer that, please...
>
>
> Already did.
>
> > For low-capacity
> > tapes, it's OK, they're a cheaper solution for lower capacity backups,
>
> What "lower capacity tapes"?
>
> > but
> > enterprise solutions are enterprise solutions, and there is no room for
> > games here...
>
> So who was asking for an "enterprise solution"?
>
>
> -- 
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

I also have a Quantum brand 10k SCSI 160 drive.
I downloaded and ran HD tach.
The quantum was faster then the Fujitsu which were both faster then the
data given for the raptor.

Do you have any idea of a decent price for the Raptor?
I see there are 2 different sizes, is there a speed difference in the
size?

I will buy a raptor, and another decent 160 drive.... this will end the
debate.

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119816947.377350.30160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I also have a Quantum brand 10k SCSI 160 drive.


Repeated claims not showing model number are to be ignored.  You are
sounding more like a SCSI marketing droid on each post.

> I downloaded and ran HD tach.
> The quantum was faster then the Fujitsu which were both faster then the
> data given for the raptor.


HDTach doesn't show actual app/OS performance.  Triple cost SCSI HDs don't
compete price-performance wise with [S]ATA HDs in single user workstation
usage.

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119817026.947315.273010@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Do you have any idea of a decent price for the Raptor?

$182 www.mwave.com

> I see there are 2 different sizes, is there a speed difference in the
> size?

Yes,  the 74GB is the one to get and is faster.

> I will buy a raptor, and another decent 160 drive.... this will end the
> debate.

Not with you as the reporter.  All this has altready been done.  There are a
number of sites on the web who have run all the benchmarks on these issues
and most all [S]ATA and SCSI HDs.

In article <d9ijqq02e9g@enews4.newsguy.com>, Eric Gisin
<ericgisin@hotmail.com> writes

>Just like the deathstar (75GXP) myth, right Ron?
>Remember the "IBM slime cult" that was responsible for that mth?

IBM have finally 'fessed up and admitted responsibility:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24205

What say you about that, Ron?

In article <rJ3ve.355805$cg1.225893@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes

>A triple cost late model 15kRPM SCSI HD is a little faster

Wriggle, wriggle.  It's actually /much/ faster.

> BUT the much less
>expensive dual drive [S]ATA RAID 0 is faster than any single drive 15K RPM
>solution.

And halves the reliability to boot.

Same old Retard Ronnie bullshit.

In message <dDUEUiK5+XwCFwBZ@jasper.org.uk>, Mike Tomlinson 
<mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> writes
>In article <rJ3ve.355805$cg1.225893@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
>>A triple cost late model 15kRPM SCSI HD is a little faster
>
>Wriggle, wriggle.  It's actually /much/ faster.
>
>> BUT the much less
>>expensive dual drive [S]ATA RAID 0 is faster than any single drive 15K RPM
>>solution.
>
>And halves the reliability to boot.
>
>Same old Retard Ronnie bullshit.
>
What is "RAID 0" - is this just the same as "Just a Box Of Disks"?

-- 
Jeremy Boden

In article <BTeKu8AWfbwCFwj5@jboden.demon.co.uk>, Jeremy Boden
<jeremy@jboden.demon.co.uk> writes

>What is "RAID 0" - is this just the same as "Just a Box Of Disks"?

Not quite.  It refers to striping one or more disks together to form one
larger logical disk. Performance is usually good, but the downside is
that there's no fault tolerance at all - if one disk fails, all data on
the array is lost.

JBOD (just a bunch of disks) means just that. Each disk is its own
logical disk and has its own filesystem.

RAID 0 is an oxymoron really, as there's no redundancy.

"Mike Tomlinson" <mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> wrote in message news:2ugefPMr+bwCFwHI@jasper.org.uk
> In article <BTeKu8AWfbwCFwj5@jboden.demon.co.uk>, Jeremy Boden <jeremy@jboden.demon.co.uk> writes
> 
> > What is "RAID 0" - is this just the same as "Just a Box Of Disks"?
> 
> Not quite.  It refers to striping one or more disks together to form one
> larger logical disk. Performance is usually good, but the downside is
> that there's no fault tolerance at all - if one disk fails, all data on
> the array is lost.
> 
> JBOD (just a bunch of disks) means just that. 

Yes, ...

> Each disk is its own  logical disk and has its own filesystem.

.... but not that. 

It's one new virtual physical disk consisting of concatenated physical disks.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Redundant_array_of_independent_disks#Concatenation_.28JBOD.29
You may also know it as 'spanning'.

> 
> RAID 0 is an oxymoron really, as there's no redundancy.

In article <42c1db9f$1$86818$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> writes

>It's one new virtual physical disk consisting of concatenated physical disks.
>http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Redundant_array_of_independent_disks#Concatenat
>ion_.28JBOD.29
>You may also know it as 'spanning'.

Thanks for the correction.

"Mike Tomlinson" <mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> wrote in message
news:dDUEUiK5+XwCFwBZ@jasper.org.uk...
> In article <rJ3ve.355805$cg1.225893@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
> >A triple cost late model 15kRPM SCSI HD is a little faster
>
> Wriggle, wriggle.  It's actually /much/ faster.


Clueless.  Cite a reference in single user workstation usage.

> > BUT the much less
> >expensive dual drive [S]ATA RAID 0 is faster than any single drive 15K
RPM
> >solution.
>
> And halves the reliability to boot.

Yep but then price performance is the issue and good backups cover that.

"Jeremy Boden" <jeremy@jboden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BTeKu8AWfbwCFwj5@jboden.demon.co.uk...
> In message <dDUEUiK5+XwCFwBZ@jasper.org.uk>, Mike Tomlinson
> <mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> writes
> >In article <rJ3ve.355805$cg1.225893@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> >Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes
> >
> >>A triple cost late model 15kRPM SCSI HD is a little faster
> >
> >Wriggle, wriggle.  It's actually /much/ faster.
> >
> >> BUT the much less
> >>expensive dual drive [S]ATA RAID 0 is faster than any single drive 15K
RPM
> >>solution.
> >
> >And halves the reliability to boot.
> >
> >Same old Retard Ronnie bullshit.
> >
> What is "RAID 0" - is this just the same as "Just a Box Of Disks"?

Two drives run in tandem where half the data is on each drive and that
doubles the sustained transfer rate and has other performance benefits and a
few performance reductions.

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:Ixrwe.369071$cg1.353643@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "Jeremy Boden" <jeremy@jboden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:BTeKu8AWfbwCFwj5@jboden.demon.co.uk...
> > In message dDUEUiK5+XwCFwBZ@jasper.org.uk>, Mike Tomlinson <mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> writes
> > > In article rJ3ve.355805$cg1.225893@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes
> > > 
> > > > A triple cost late model 15kRPM SCSI HD is a little faster
> > > 
> > > Wriggle, wriggle.  It's actually /much/ faster.
> > > 
> > > > BUT the much less expensive dual drive [S]ATA RAID 0 is faster 
> > > > than any single drive 15K RPM solution.
> > > 
> > > And halves the reliability to boot.
> > > 
> > > Same old Retard Ronnie bullshit.
> > > 
> > What is "RAID 0" - is this just the same as "Just a Box Of Disks"?
> 
> Two drives 

Clueless. Multiple (x) drives.

> run in tandem 

> where half the data 

1/x of the data

> is on each drive and that

> doubles 

times x

> the sustained transfer rate 

> and has other performance benefits 

No, that's it.

> and a few performance reductions.

On small files.

In article <txrwe.369070$cg1.197328@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes

>Clueless.

That's rich coming from "Mr Deskstar 75GXP Slime Cult" himself.

>  Cite a reference in single user workstation usage.

You made the original claim. You back it up with a citation.

>Yep but then price performance is the issue and good backups cover that.

Wriggle, wriggle.

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:42c259fa$0$76899$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Ixrwe.369071$cg1.353643@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> > "Jeremy Boden" <jeremy@jboden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BTeKu8AWfbwCFwj5@jboden.demon.co.uk...
> > > In message dDUEUiK5+XwCFwBZ@jasper.org.uk>, Mike Tomlinson
<mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> writes
> > > > In article
rJ3ve.355805$cg1.225893@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Ron Reaugh
<ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes
> > > >
> > > > > A triple cost late model 15kRPM SCSI HD is a little faster
> > > >
> > > > Wriggle, wriggle.  It's actually /much/ faster.
> > > >
> > > > > BUT the much less expensive dual drive [S]ATA RAID 0 is faster
> > > > > than any single drive 15K RPM solution.
> > > >
> > > > And halves the reliability to boot.
> > > >
> > > > Same old Retard Ronnie bullshit.
> > > >
> > > What is "RAID 0" - is this just the same as "Just a Box Of Disks"?
> >
> > Two drives
>
> Clueless. Multiple (x) drives.
>
> > run in tandem
>
> > where half the data
>
> 1/x of the data
>
> > is on each drive and that
>
> > doubles
>
> times x
>
> > the sustained transfer rate
>
> > and has other performance benefits
>
> No, that's it.


Wacko,  small record random I/O throughput where the record size is much
smaller than the stripe unit size is doubled for the two drives I was
describing.  Can ya figure the non-improvement for 3 drives?

> > and a few performance reductions.
>
> On small files.

Nope,  for that the multithreaded throuphput may be significantly improved.
The performance loss is that the average access time is increased when the
record spans stripe units.  I know this in gettin a lil complex for ya but
one can always have hope.

Regardless of the performance and price garbage...

I picked up a SCSI RAID card and 4 10k 36 gig harddrives..

I will be starting a new thread for the best way to set these up.

Thanks for all the great comments.

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120069414.859257.244310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Regardless of the performance and price garbage...
>
> I picked up a SCSI RAID card and 4 10k 36 gig harddrives..


Too bad.  You should have got 4 inexpensive late model high performance
[S]ATA HDs and an inexpensive late model [S]ATA RAID card and then you would
get much more storage that is just as fast and likely faster and spend less
dollars.

Ron Reaugh wrote:
> "Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1120069414.859257.244310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 
>>Regardless of the performance and price garbage...
>>
>>I picked up a SCSI RAID card and 4 10k 36 gig harddrives..
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad.  You should have got 4 inexpensive late model high performance
> [S]ATA HDs and an inexpensive late model [S]ATA RAID card and then you would
> get much more storage that is just as fast and likely faster and spend less
> dollars.

You don't know what he paid, so how can you comment on price/performance?

He may have picked up 4 used late model 10K 36G SCSI drives for the same 
price as a single new Raptor, and gotten the RAID card thrown in - just 
as I did recently.

"Sunny" <sunny@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:0bCwe.9697$mK5.619012@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>
> Ron Reaugh wrote:
> > "Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1120069414.859257.244310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>Regardless of the performance and price garbage...
> >>
> >>I picked up a SCSI RAID card and 4 10k 36 gig harddrives..
> >
> >
> >
> > Too bad.  You should have got 4 inexpensive late model high performance
> > [S]ATA HDs and an inexpensive late model [S]ATA RAID card and then you
would
> > get much more storage that is just as fast and likely faster and spend
less
> > dollars.
>
> You don't know what he paid, so how can you comment on price/performance?


What he paid isn't relevant.  The current market price is the relevant
factor.

> He may have picked up 4 used late model 10K 36G SCSI drives for the same
> price as a single new Raptor,


Not unless he stole them.

> and gotten the RAID card thrown in - just
> as I did recently.

What model drives and controller?

I paid a bit more then the price of one Raptor drive and SATA card
would have cost me.

Less then the cost of 2 Raptor drives and SATA card

Assuming the price is the same..

Wouldn't 2 36gig drives be faster then 1 single 73gig drive?
And 3 drives even better.

The fact of having the OS - Programs - Data and Swap file on separate
physical drives.
Assuming the same model types.

If you had a 36 gig Raptor drive that was as fast as the 73gig model.
Wouldn't 2 36 gig drives be faster then 2 single 73gig model?

If speed were in relation to application performance.

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120078605.005128.230880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I paid a bit more then the price of one Raptor drive and SATA card
> would have cost me.

FOR WHAT MODEL RAID CARD AND WHAT MODEL SCSI HDs?

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120078839.720051.121680@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Assuming the price is the same..

Nope.

> Wouldn't 2 36gig drives be faster then 1 single 73gig drive?

Depends on the HD model and how they are configured.

> And 3 drives even better.

Same.

> The fact of having the OS - Programs - Data and Swap file on separate
> physical drives.

All three on a RAID 0 array will help.   Have enough RAM such that the swap
file isn't a factor.

> Assuming the same model types.
>
> If you had a 36 gig Raptor drive that was as fast as the 73gig model.

The 74GB Raptor is the fast model.

> Wouldn't 2 36 gig drives be faster then 2 single 73gig model?

Generally no as the bigger drive is usually faster.  Rephrase your question.

> If speed were in relation to application performance.

Assuming they are properly configured.....


3 73GB raptors would be faster then 1 single 73GB Raptor?

That was my point....


> 
> 
> Generally no as the bigger drive is usually faster.  Rephrase your question.
> 
> 
>>If speed were in relation to application performance.
> 
> 
> 
> 

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:aNBwe.370656$cg1.67019@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1120069414.859257.244310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Regardless of the performance and price garbage...
> >
> > I picked up a SCSI RAID card and 4 10k 36 gig harddrives..
>
>
> Too bad.  You should have got 4 inexpensive late model high performance
> [S]ATA HDs and an inexpensive late model [S]ATA RAID card and then you would
> get much more storage that is just as fast and likely faster and spend less
> dollars.
>

Well Ron, just a few months ago you posted you own recent Fujitsu SCSI drives.

"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9vns80acb@enews4.newsguy.com...
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:aNBwe.370656$cg1.67019@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1120069414.859257.244310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Regardless of the performance and price garbage...
> > >
> > > I picked up a SCSI RAID card and 4 10k 36 gig harddrives..
> >
> >
> > Too bad.  You should have got 4 inexpensive late model high performance
> > [S]ATA HDs and an inexpensive late model [S]ATA RAID card and then you
would
> > get much more storage that is just as fast and likely faster and spend
less
> > dollars.
> >
>
> Well Ron, just a few months ago you posted you own recent Fujitsu SCSI
drives.

Can you formulate a coherent statement in English??...don't think so!

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:1MJwe.371888$cg1.129897@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d9vns80acb@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:aNBwe.370656$cg1.67019@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > Too bad.  You should have got 4 inexpensive late model high performance
> > > [S]ATA HDs and an inexpensive late model [S]ATA RAID card and then you
> would
> > > get much more storage that is just as fast and likely faster and spend
> less
> > > dollars.
> > >
> >
> > Well Ron, just a few months ago you posted you own recent Fujitsu SCSI
> drives.
>
> Can you formulate a coherent statement in English??...don't think so!
>
Too dumb to figure out I left out the word "that"?

In 2004 you posted 6 messages recommending the 15K MAS3735.
Twice you wrote "Use Fujitsu MAS3735 drives and fly."
So, do you or did you own those drives?

"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9vtek0dlp@enews4.newsguy.com...
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:1MJwe.371888$cg1.129897@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:d9vns80acb@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > > "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > > news:aNBwe.370656$cg1.67019@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > >
> > > > Too bad.  You should have got 4 inexpensive late model high
performance
> > > > [S]ATA HDs and an inexpensive late model [S]ATA RAID card and then
you
> > would
> > > > get much more storage that is just as fast and likely faster and
spend
> > less
> > > > dollars.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well Ron, just a few months ago you posted you own recent Fujitsu SCSI
> > drives.
> >
> > Can you formulate a coherent statement in English??...don't think so!
> >
> Too dumb to figure out I left out the word "that"?
>
> In 2004 you posted 6 messages recommending the 15K MAS3735.
> Twice you wrote "Use Fujitsu MAS3735 drives and fly."
> So, do you or did you own those drives?

Wacko.   Your usual fraud as you of course included the thread citation for
all to read for themsleves.

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:3ULwe.372228$cg1.234934@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d9vtek0dlp@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:1MJwe.371888$cg1.129897@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d9vns80acb@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > > > "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:aNBwe.370656$cg1.67019@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > Too bad. You should have got 4 inexpensive late model high performance
> > > > > [S]ATA HDs and an inexpensive late model [S]ATA RAID card and then you would
> > > > > get much more storage that is just as fast and likely faster and spend less dollars.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well Ron, just a few months ago you posted you own recent Fujitsu SCSI drives.
> > >
> > > Can you formulate a coherent statement in English??...don't think so!
> > >
> > Too dumb to figure out I left out the word "that"?
> >
> > In 2004 you posted 6 messages recommending the 15K MAS3735.
> > Twice you wrote "Use Fujitsu MAS3735 drives and fly."
> > So, do you or did you own those drives?
>
> Wacko. Your usual fraud as you of course included the thread citation for
> all to read for themsleves.

What's wrong with their sleves?

So Ron, this is your new improved meaning of a coherent statement, is it?
I think you should go back to the sanatorium, Ron. I think you left it to soon.
It does take it's time to recover from that brain hemorrhage that you
suffered and which caused you to leave here quite some time ago.

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:1MJwe.371888$cg1.129897@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d9vns80acb@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > "Ron Reaugh" wrote in message"ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:aNBwe.370656$cg1.67019@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > "Fishhead" wrote in message"gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1120069414.859257.244310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Regardless of the performance and price garbage...
> > > >
> > > > I picked up a SCSI RAID card and 4 10k 36 gig harddrives..
> > >
> > >
> > > Too bad. You should have got 4 inexpensive late model high performance
> > > [S]ATA HDs and an inexpensive late model [S]ATA RAID card and then you would
> > > get much more storage that is just as fast and likely faster and spend less dollars.
> > >
> >
> > Well Ron, just a few months ago you posted you own recent Fujitsu SCSI drives.
>
> Can you formulate a coherent statement in English??...don't think so!

Anyone noticed Ronnie ask a lot of rhetorical questions lately?

And Ron, in case you wonder why I didn't come back to some of your othe rhetorical
questions, it wasn't because of that but because of your completely incoherent babbling.

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3ULwe.372228$cg1.234934@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d9vtek0dlp@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:1MJwe.371888$cg1.129897@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > >
> > > > Well Ron, just a few months ago you posted you own recent Fujitsu SCSI
> > > drives.
> > >
> > > Can you formulate a coherent statement in English??...don't think so!
> > >
> > Too dumb to figure out I left out the word "that"?
> >
> > In 2004 you posted 6 messages recommending the 15K MAS3735.
> > Twice you wrote "Use Fujitsu MAS3735 drives and fly."
> > So, do you or did you own those drives?
>
> Wacko.   Your usual fraud as you of course included the thread citation for
> all to read for themsleves.
>
Forget to take your anti-psychotics today, Ronnie?

A'll bet yr gonna start ranting about OE settings again...wait for the full
moom.

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:42c41d88$0$47992$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3ULwe.372228$cg1.234934@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> > "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9vtek0dlp@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > > "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:1MJwe.371888$cg1.129897@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9vns80acb@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > > > > "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:aNBwe.370656$cg1.67019@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Too bad. You should have got 4 inexpensive late model high
performance
> > > > > > [S]ATA HDs and an inexpensive late model [S]ATA RAID card and
then you would
> > > > > > get much more storage that is just as fast and likely faster and
spend less dollars.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well Ron, just a few months ago you posted you own recent Fujitsu
SCSI drives.
> > > >
> > > > Can you formulate a coherent statement in English??...don't think
so!
> > > >
> > > Too dumb to figure out I left out the word "that"?
> > >
> > > In 2004 you posted 6 messages recommending the 15K MAS3735.
> > > Twice you wrote "Use Fujitsu MAS3735 drives and fly."
> > > So, do you or did you own those drives?
> >
> > Wacko. Your usual fraud as you of course included the thread citation
for
> > all to read for themsleves.
>
> What's wrong with their sleves?
>
> So Ron, this is your new improved meaning of a coherent statement, is it?
> I think you should go back to the sanatorium, Ron. I think you left it to
soon.
> It does take it's time to recover from that brain hemorrhage that you
> suffered and which caused you to leave here quite some time ago.
>

Ron Reaugh wrote:
> "Sunny" <sunny@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:0bCwe.9697$mK5.619012@news20.bellglobal.com...
> 
>>
>>Ron Reaugh wrote:
>>
>>>"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1120069414.859257.244310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Regardless of the performance and price garbage...
>>>>
>>>>I picked up a SCSI RAID card and 4 10k 36 gig harddrives..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Too bad.  You should have got 4 inexpensive late model high performance
>>>[S]ATA HDs and an inexpensive late model [S]ATA RAID card and then you
> 
> would
> 
>>>get much more storage that is just as fast and likely faster and spend
> 
> less
> 
>>>dollars.
>>
>>You don't know what he paid, so how can you comment on price/performance?
> 
> 
> 
> What he paid isn't relevant.  The current market price is the relevant
> factor.
> 
> 
>>He may have picked up 4 used late model 10K 36G SCSI drives for the same
>>price as a single new Raptor,
> 
> 
> 
> Not unless he stole them.
> 
> 
>>and gotten the RAID card thrown in - just
>>as I did recently.
> 
> 
> What model drives and controller?

MAP3367NP & 3400s

"Sunny" <sunny@nospam.net> wrote in message 
news:BY2ye.3062$Ud.205281@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>
> Ron Reaugh wrote:
>> "Sunny" <sunny@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:0bCwe.9697$mK5.619012@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>
>>>
>>>Ron Reaugh wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1120069414.859257.244310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Regardless of the performance and price garbage...
>>>>>
>>>>>I picked up a SCSI RAID card and 4 10k 36 gig harddrives..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Too bad.  You should have got 4 inexpensive late model high performance
>>>>[S]ATA HDs and an inexpensive late model [S]ATA RAID card and then you
>>
>> would
>>
>>>>get much more storage that is just as fast and likely faster and spend
>>
>> less
>>
>>>>dollars.
>>>
>>>You don't know what he paid, so how can you comment on price/performance?
>>
>>
>>
>> What he paid isn't relevant.  The current market price is the relevant
>> factor.
>>
>>
>>>He may have picked up 4 used late model 10K 36G SCSI drives for the same
>>>price as a single new Raptor,
>>
>>
>>
>> Not unless he stole them.
>>
>>
>>>and gotten the RAID card thrown in - just
>>>as I did recently.
>>
>>
>> What model drives and controller?
>
> MAP3367NP & 3400s

MAP3367 is 38GB and the 74GB model MAP3735 costs about $300 while the 74GB 
Raptor costs $190.

An Adaptec 3400S costs about $400.  An Intel chipset mobo with an ICH5R or 
ICH6R has builtin RAID 0/1 for the SATA Raptors.

Such a SCSI RAID 0 or RAID 1 configuration on a single user workstation 
offers little over the much less expensive SATA RAID solution.

Good SATA HW RAID 5 is available via a 3Ware(9500) card for about $300. 

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Sp4ye.1076669$w62.76616@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Sunny" <sunny@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:BY2ye.3062$Ud.205281@news20.bellglobal.com...

> >> What model drives and controller?
> >
> > MAP3367NP & 3400s
>
> MAP3367 is 38GB and the 74GB model MAP3735 costs about $300 while the 74GB
> Raptor costs $190.
>
A new FUJITSU MAP 36GB 10K just sold for $46, much less than Raptor's $120.
Ebay item 5212534574. Previous generation SCSI is cheap.

> An Adaptec 3400S costs about $400.  An Intel chipset mobo with an ICH5R or
> ICH6R has builtin RAID 0/1 for the SATA Raptors.
>
Used Ultra160 RAID is OK for 2-3 drives, and costs very little.

> Such a SCSI RAID 0 or RAID 1 configuration on a single user workstation
> offers little over the much less expensive SATA RAID solution.
>
> Good SATA HW RAID 5 is available via a 3Ware(9500) card for about $300.
>
Intel's SW RAID 5 for the ICH7 performs very well. Tom's Hardware just reviewed it.

"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:dabs4605ac@enews3.newsguy.com...
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:Sp4ye.1076669$w62.76616@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> "Sunny" <sunny@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:BY2ye.3062$Ud.205281@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>> >> What model drives and controller?
>> >
>> > MAP3367NP & 3400s
>>
>> MAP3367 is 38GB and the 74GB model MAP3735 costs about $300 while the 
>> 74GB
>> Raptor costs $190.
>>
> A new FUJITSU MAP 36GB 10K just sold for $46, much less than Raptor's 
> $120.


Ebay frauds don't count.  Prices at reputable web outlets like Page or 
NewEgg do.  Get a clue.  The Raptor is 74GB and about $190.

> Ebay item 5212534574. Previous generation SCSI is cheap.
>
>> An Adaptec 3400S costs about $400.  An Intel chipset mobo with an ICH5R 
>> or
>> ICH6R has builtin RAID 0/1 for the SATA Raptors.
>>
> Used Ultra160 RAID is OK for 2-3 drives, and costs very little.


Stolen is cheaper yet....have you done that?  Now,  let's guess what kind of 
reliability you get from your HW?

>> Such a SCSI RAID 0 or RAID 1 configuration on a single user workstation
>> offers little over the much less expensive SATA RAID solution.
>>
>> Good SATA HW RAID 5 is available via a 3Ware(9500) card for about $300.
>>
> Intel's SW RAID 5 for the ICH7 performs very well. Tom's Hardware just 
> reviewed it.


Reviewed without full insight that is.  SW/firmware RAID 5 can work ok.  But 
that review at Tom's fails to show CPU usage and also ignores the rebuild 
load of replacing a failed drive in a RAID 5 set.  Full non-host CPU/bus 
support is required for full/robust RAID 5 support.  For modest 
configuration file servers(not app servers) that don't require high 
uptime/availability but just no lost data then such [S]ATA RAID 5 solutions 
are VERY cost effective as I've been saying for years. 

Take you meds, Ronnie. Conspiracy theories are not valid arguments.

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:nwfye.386995$cg1.342585@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dabs4605ac@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:Sp4ye.1076669$w62.76616@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >>
> >> "Sunny" <sunny@nospam.net> wrote in message
> >> news:BY2ye.3062$Ud.205281@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> >> >> What model drives and controller?
> >> >
> >> > MAP3367NP & 3400s
> >>
> >> MAP3367 is 38GB and the 74GB model MAP3735 costs about $300 while the
> >> 74GB
> >> Raptor costs $190.
> >>
> > A new FUJITSU MAP 36GB 10K just sold for $46, much less than Raptor's
> > $120.
>
>
> Ebay frauds don't count.  Prices at reputable web outlets like Page or
> NewEgg do.  Get a clue.  The Raptor is 74GB and about $190.
>
> > Ebay item 5212534574. Previous generation SCSI is cheap.
> >
> >> An Adaptec 3400S costs about $400.  An Intel chipset mobo with an ICH5R
> >> or
> >> ICH6R has builtin RAID 0/1 for the SATA Raptors.
> >>
> > Used Ultra160 RAID is OK for 2-3 drives, and costs very little.
>
>
> Stolen is cheaper yet....have you done that?  Now,  let's guess what kind of
> reliability you get from your HW?
>
> >> Such a SCSI RAID 0 or RAID 1 configuration on a single user workstation
> >> offers little over the much less expensive SATA RAID solution.
> >>
> >> Good SATA HW RAID 5 is available via a 3Ware(9500) card for about $300.
>

Ron Reaugh wrote:

> "Sunny" <sunny@nospam.net> wrote in message 
> news:BY2ye.3062$Ud.205281@news20.bellglobal.com...
> 
>>
>>Ron Reaugh wrote:
>>
>>>"Sunny" <sunny@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>>news:0bCwe.9697$mK5.619012@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron Reaugh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:1120069414.859257.244310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Regardless of the performance and price garbage...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I picked up a SCSI RAID card and 4 10k 36 gig harddrives..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Too bad.  You should have got 4 inexpensive late model high performance
>>>>>[S]ATA HDs and an inexpensive late model [S]ATA RAID card and then you
>>>
>>>would
>>>
>>>
>>>>>get much more storage that is just as fast and likely faster and spend
>>>
>>>less
>>>
>>>
>>>>>dollars.
>>>>
>>>>You don't know what he paid, so how can you comment on price/performance?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>What he paid isn't relevant.  The current market price is the relevant
>>>factor.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>He may have picked up 4 used late model 10K 36G SCSI drives for the same
>>>>price as a single new Raptor,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Not unless he stole them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>and gotten the RAID card thrown in - just
>>>>as I did recently.
>>>
>>>
>>>What model drives and controller?
>>
>>MAP3367NP & 3400s
> 
> 
> MAP3367 is 38GB and the 74GB model MAP3735 costs about $300 while the 74GB 
> Raptor costs $190.
> 
> An Adaptec 3400S costs about $400.  An Intel chipset mobo with an ICH5R or 
> ICH6R has builtin RAID 0/1 for the SATA Raptors.
> 
> Such a SCSI RAID 0 or RAID 1 configuration on a single user workstation 
> offers little over the much less expensive SATA RAID solution.

My cost was $CAD200 for a 3 x 36GB RAID 5 array and a spare drive. I 
installed it in my dual P3 workstation, which remains more than adequate 
for my needs - I just needed more storage, redundancy is a bonus. I paid 
market price for the drives from a reputable reseller, and obtained a 
receipt. The RAID controller was thrown in free because it was 
non-functional - someone had dropped it and knocked off several passive 
surface mount components, repair took me about an hour.

I considered all options, but used SCSI in general and the offer I 
accepted in particular was by far the most cost effective solution.

I paid $300 for mine.
4 drives and a RAID card.


> 
> My cost was $CAD200 for a 3 x 36GB RAID 5 array and a spare drive. I 
> installed it in my dual P3 workstation, which remains more than adequate 
> for my needs - I just needed more storage, redundancy is a bonus. I paid 
> market price for the drives from a reputable reseller, and obtained a 
> receipt. The RAID controller was thrown in free because it was 
> non-functional - someone had dropped it and knocked off several passive 
> surface mount components, repair took me about an hour.
> 
> I considered all options, but used SCSI in general and the offer I 
> accepted in particular was by far the most cost effective solution.

And another one that uses that POS Mozilla crap.
Cut the quotation shite that it produces before you send, will ya!
Or learn how to use that POS software.

"Sunny" <sunny@nospam.net> wrote in message news:xIkye.2334$is5.249931@news20.bellglobal.com
> Ron Reaugh wrote:
> 
> > "Sunny" <sunny@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > news:BY2ye.3062$Ud.205281@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > 
> > > 
> > > Ron Reaugh wrote:
> > > 
> > > > "Sunny" <sunny@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:0bCwe.9697$mK5.619012@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > Ron Reaugh wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > "Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:1120069414.859257.244310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Regardless of the performance and price garbage...
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I picked up a SCSI RAID card and 4 10k 36 gig harddrives..
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Too bad.  You should have got 4 inexpensive late model high performance
> > > > > > [S]ATA HDs and an inexpensive late model [S]ATA RAID card and then you
> > > > 
> > > > would
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > > get much more storage that is just as fast and likely faster and spend
> > > > 
> > > > less
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > > dollars.
> > > > > 
> > > > > You don't know what he paid, so how can you comment on price/performance?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > What he paid isn't relevant.  The current market price is the relevant
> > > > factor.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > He may have picked up 4 used late model 10K 36G SCSI drives for the same
> > > > > price as a single new Raptor,
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Not unless he stole them.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > and gotten the RAID card thrown in - just
> > > > > as I did recently.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > What model drives and controller?
> > > 
> > > MAP3367NP & 3400s
[snip]

In message <42ca88e9$1$258$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>, 
Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> writes
>And another one that uses that POS Mozilla crap.
>Cut the quotation shite that it produces before you send, will ya!
>Or learn how to use that POS software.
>
>"Sunny" <sunny@nospam.net> wrote in message 
>news:xIkye.2334$is5.249931@news20.bellglobal.com
>> Ron Reaugh wrote:
>>
>> > "Sunny" <sunny@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> > news:BY2ye.3062$Ud.205281@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Ron Reaugh wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > "Sunny" <sunny@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> > > > news:0bCwe.9697$mK5.619012@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > Ron Reaugh wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > "Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > > > > > news:1120069414.859257.244310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Regardless of the performance and price garbage...
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I picked up a SCSI RAID card and 4 10k 36 gig harddrives..
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Too bad.  You should have got 4 inexpensive late model high 
>> > > > > >performance
>> > > > > > [S]ATA HDs and an inexpensive late model [S]ATA RAID card 
>> > > > > >and then you
>> > > >
>> > > > would
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > > get much more storage that is just as fast and likely 
>> > > > > >spend
>> > > >
>> > > > less
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > > dollars.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > You don't know what he paid, so how can you comment on 
>> > > > >price/performance?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > What he paid isn't relevant.  The current market price is the relevant
>> > > > factor.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > He may have picked up 4 used late model 10K 36G SCSI drives 
>> > > > >for the same
>> > > > > price as a single new Raptor,
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Not unless he stole them.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > and gotten the RAID card thrown in - just
>> > > > > as I did recently.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > What model drives and controller?
>> > >
>> > > MAP3367NP & 3400s
>[snip]

No top posting please.
What does POS mean?
BTW this wasn't posted with mozilla.

-- 
Jeremy Boden

"Jeremy Boden" <jeremy@jboden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:cRJtetABGpyCFww6@jboden.demon.co.uk...
>
> No top posting please.
> What does POS mean?
> BTW this wasn't posted with mozilla.
>

Very often it means Point Of Sale, probably not in this context ;-)

Rob