RE: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter?
I need to build a 1TB+ array sometime soon. Completed ripping my CDs to FLAC and that takes one 400gig drive (with a little head room for growth) and am running through my DVDs now. Quickly filling the two 250gig drives I have :( Looking at an Infrant ReadyNAS NV, very cool :) http://www.infrant.com Can run SlimServer for my two SqueezeBoxes too -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Weeden Sent: 11 February 2006 03:49 To: The Hardware List Subject: Re: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter? Or you NEED several hundred gigs of space? 5 years ago that was insane for a home user. Now, my 1.5 TB RAID array is half full. -- Brian
Re: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter?
- Original Message - From: Mark Dodge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'The Hardware List' hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 10:41 PM Subject: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter? Isn't it funny how nowadays it is time to think about getting a new drive or at least a larger one when you drop below 10 gigs remaining In the Windows 95 days we knew that performance dropped when the hard drive space dropped to 50 MB or lower on the partition that hosted the operating system. My experience with Windows XP tells me that point is when you have used half or more of the space on the partition that hosts the operating system and/or when you have loaded over half of your RAM. This is why I like to use a partition of at least 20 GB for the operating system on 40 GB drives, 30 GB on 60 GB drives, 40 GB on 80 GB drives, and no more than 50 GB on larger drives to host the operating system. My prices on SATA hard drives range from $90.00 for an 80 GB to $130.00 for a 250 GB, so it just does not make sense to buy less than the 250 GB. Chuck
Re: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter?
Brian Weeden wrote:Or you NEED several hundred gigs of space?5 years ago that was insane for a home user. Now, my 1.5 TB RAIDarray is half full. No matter how much space I have, I get nervous when it's half full.
RE: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter?
Want cheap? Look at Nas Lite+ http://www.serverelements.com/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of warpmedia Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 9:20 AM To: The Hardware List Subject: Re: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter? I need to go to something permanent redundant when I can afford it though I may have to consider a backup solution 1st since availability is second to not having all may data go *poof*. Lost a over 150GB due to XP, 1394, encryption when the dreaded M$ Delayed Write Failure corrupted my external Drivecrypt Truecrypt volumes a few months ago. No way to recover them unlike unencrypted data can be, no complete/recent backups. DWF is still an issue it seems, so I will not be trusting my encrypted stuff to external 1394 under XP anymore. Been trying for a year (like many other people, google it) to figure out why it happens. Just don't have the $$$ to try combo's of enclosure chipsets FW cards to solve the problem. Right now I got the Dell i8200 laptop's FW 2 Oxford 911 chipset enclosures the both do random DWF's every so often. Neil Davidson wrote: I need to build a 1TB+ array sometime soon. Completed ripping my CDs to FLAC and that takes one 400gig drive (with a little head room for growth) and am running through my DVDs now. Quickly filling the two 250gig drives I have :( Looking at an Infrant ReadyNAS NV, very cool :) http://www.infrant.com Can run SlimServer for my two SqueezeBoxes too -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Weeden Sent: 11 February 2006 03:49 To: The Hardware List Subject: Re: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter? Or you NEED several hundred gigs of space? 5 years ago that was insane for a home user. Now, my 1.5 TB RAID array is half full. -- Brian
Re: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter?
I start to feel uneasy when I go below 2-300GB free. That's why I have 2.71TB on this box, 1.66TB across GbE (1.25TB of that RAID5), and 10TB on the network. :) Greg - Original Message - From: Mark Dodge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'The Hardware List' hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 9:41 PM Subject: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter? Isn't it funny how nowadays it is time to think about getting a new drive or at least a larger one when you drop below 10 gigs remaining Mark Dodge MD Computers 360-772-2433
Re: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter?
That must be hell to backup w/o a tape jukebox! Greg Sevart wrote: I start to feel uneasy when I go below 2-300GB free. That's why I have 2.71TB on this box, 1.66TB across GbE (1.25TB of that RAID5), and 10TB on the network. :) Greg - Original Message - From: Mark Dodge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'The Hardware List' hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 9:41 PM Subject: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter? Isn't it funny how nowadays it is time to think about getting a new drive or at least a larger one when you drop below 10 gigs remaining Mark Dodge MD Computers 360-772-2433
Re: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter?
Neil, after looking through everything I decided to go with a RAID 5 array. It provided the level of backup I needed. The only other real option I considered was a tape drive but it was expensive for capacities of 100GB+. Definately get an add-on RAID card with its own CPU and RAM. There are several out there for around $150-$300. Beware the ones that look too cheap to be true - they are probably offloading much of the horsepower to your CPU. I have 6 250GB Seagate SATA drives hooked up to it. Unless you have a bunch old drives laying around for some reason I think it would be stupid to go with IDE because of the cabling mess and lack of airflow. The other issue you are going to run into is with the partioning. If you go with NTFS then I believe you can make it one big drive. But if you want it to be useable for a Linux box you need to use FAT32 which is limited to around 180GB per partition. So I would figure out a plan for how to set that up because once you move a few hundred GB to it you are pretty much set in stone :) On 2/11/06, Neil Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I need to build a 1TB+ array sometime soon. Completed ripping my CDs to FLAC and that takes one 400gig drive (with a little head room for growth) and am running through my DVDs now. Quickly filling the two 250gig drives I have :( Looking at an Infrant ReadyNAS NV, very cool :) http://www.infrant.com Can run SlimServer for my two SqueezeBoxes too -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Weeden Sent: 11 February 2006 03:49 To: The Hardware List Subject: Re: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter? Or you NEED several hundred gigs of space? 5 years ago that was insane for a home user. Now, my 1.5 TB RAID array is half full. -- Brian -- Brian
Re: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter?
At 10:51 AM 2/11/2006, Brian Weeden typed: But if you want it to be useable for a Linux box you need to use FAT32 which is limited to around 180GB per partition. Why is that as I had my WD 250g drive with 1 partition that was formatted in Fat32 before I converted it to NTFS ? --+-- Wayne D. Johnson Ashland, OH, USA 44805 http://www.wavijo.com
Re: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter?
A little research turns up that while the theoretical limit of FAT32 is 2TB per volume, Windows is limited to 32GB per volumne when formatting. So I guess whatever util I used to created it was limited to 191 GB. Weird. That sucks actually :( On 2/11/06, Wayne Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 10:51 AM 2/11/2006, Brian Weeden typed: But if you want it to be useable for a Linux box you need to use FAT32 which is limited to around 180GB per partition. Why is that as I had my WD 250g drive with 1 partition that was formatted in Fat32 before I converted it to NTFS ? --+-- Wayne D. Johnson Ashland, OH, USA 44805 http://www.wavijo.com -- Brian
Re: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter?
At 02:42 PM 2/11/2006, CW typed: You're both close. FAT32 still has a cluster issue as the drive size goes up, so the ammount you'd be losing due to FAT32 overhead on a 250G drive would be a fair chunk, and pretty unacceptable. At least it's not a 500g drive. ;-) --+-- Wayne D. Johnson Ashland, OH, USA 44805 http://www.wavijo.com
RE: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter?
A little research turns up that while the theoretical limit of FAT32 is 2TB per volume, Windows is limited to 32GB per volumne when formatting. So I guess whatever util I used to created it was limited to 191 GB. Weird. That sucks actually :( Win2K and XP are limited to creating 32gig partitions with FAT32. Win98 doesn't have this limit, which was imposed to try and get people to move to NTFS. If you use a third party tool to partition and format the drive (Partition Magic for example) Win2k and XP will quite happily mount any size of FAT32 up to 2TB without issue
RE: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter?
Neil, after looking through everything I decided to go with a RAID 5 array. It provided the level of backup I needed. The only other real option I considered was a tape drive but it was expensive for capacities of 100GB+. I don't want to have to manage a RAID array myself, so I'll go with a NAS box. I predominantly use a laptop so RAID in that isn't going to happen :) and my only desktop is meant to be a MythTV box (but is currently booted to windows to transcode some DVDs) and there is no chance of me getting RAID setup in Linux, I have enough problems with it as it is.
Re: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter?
Only important data gets backed up--and most of it isn't important. About 25% of the total 10TB is fault-tolerant (RAID1 or RAID5) storage. While this certainly isn't the same as a backup (both good and bad), it is close enough for my purposes. Greg - Original Message - From: warpmedia [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter? That must be hell to backup w/o a tape jukebox! Greg Sevart wrote: I start to feel uneasy when I go below 2-300GB free. That's why I have 2.71TB on this box, 1.66TB across GbE (1.25TB of that RAID5), and 10TB on the network. :) Greg - Original Message - From: Mark Dodge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'The Hardware List' hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 9:41 PM Subject: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter? Isn't it funny how nowadays it is time to think about getting a new drive or at least a larger one when you drop below 10 gigs remaining Mark Dodge MD Computers 360-772-2433
[H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter?
Isn't it funny how nowadays it is time to think about getting a new drive or at least a larger one when you drop below 10 gigs remaining Mark Dodge MD Computers 360-772-2433
Re: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter?
Or you NEED several hundred gigs of space? 5 years ago that was insane for a home user. Now, my 1.5 TB RAID array is half full. -- Brian
RE: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter?
I know the exact feeling. Once I began putting DVDs loaded up into my MediaCenter (My Movies) I found that space went fast. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Weeden Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 9:49 PM To: The Hardware List Subject: Re: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter? Or you NEED several hundred gigs of space? 5 years ago that was insane for a home user. Now, my 1.5 TB RAID array is half full. -- Brian
