This isn't true.
The RAID controller or software does the work, and each channel has a
master and a slave as normal.
These days with 80-way IDE leads you might as well set both drives to
cable select and let the cable decide though.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Snyder) wrote:
on 11/12/01 10:34
Blah, blah, blah
I thought this was a SCANNER list. Could we take this whole thing off line.
It's clearly turned into another Austin Franklin platform for argument and
pedantry. I'm getting a blister on my DEL key finger
Lawrence
--
Lawrence W. Smith
it or learn to use filters.
Austin
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lawrence Smith
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 7:48 AM
To: filmscanners halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
Blah, blah, blah
At 12:35 AM 14/11/01 -0600, you wrote:
With two disks, you would be correct; but in this case, the two disks are
going to act as one, so both must be set to be masters.
Right, but they are on separate IDE channels (channels 3 4) if I am
understanding things correctly which is what lets them
on 11/14/01 5:11 AM, Charles Knox at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:35 AM 14/11/01 -0600, you wrote:
With two disks, you would be correct; but in this case, the two disks are
going to act as one, so both must be set to be masters.
Right, but they are on separate IDE channels (channels 3
-called conservative flat-line model. The author
should seriously consider becoming a politician :-)
- Original Message -
From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 11:05 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
Seems
Austin wrote:
What I do
know, I know, and what I don't know, I know I don't know.
Mmmm, how do you know what you don't know :)
When I first wrote this about 5 mins ago I was about to send the message when the PC
reset itself. Did you cause that Austin ;)
What I do
know, I know, and what I don't know, I know I don't know.
Mmmm, how do you know what you don't know :)
Cause I don't know it ;-)
When I first wrote this about 5 mins ago I was about to send the
message when the PC reset itself. Did you cause that Austin ;)
May be, kind of.
MTBF of a RAID-0 system (or dual cpu/memory where one unit CAN
NOT continue
without the other) will always be lower than a single drive unless the
standard deviation (they never quote SD) of the MTBF is zero.
Well, if you take duty-cycle into account, which MTBF calculations do, you
will
]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin
Sent: Tuesday, 13 November 2001 10:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
MTBF of a RAID-0 system (or dual cpu/memory where one unit CAN
NOT continue
without the other) will always be lower than a single drive unless
Can we PLEASE take this RAID discussion off-list?
Sure, but you might want to heed your own advice, instead of throwing your
$0.02 in here too!
And there is enough misinformation
being thrown around here that it is just confusing everyone.
You're right, even you are doing it! There is also
= Original Message From Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=
May be, kind of. Are you using a Compaq or DEC server? If so, and you have
an RSM II (Remote Server Manager) board in it, I designed that board (the
new PCI version)...and it can reset the computer...either by it self, or
on 11/12/01 10:34 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, both must be set up on the same IDE channel as masters.
How does one do that? I thought that you could only have one master device
per channel; and it was the one that was connected to the end of the ribbon
cable
You should know that not only do striped disks reduce reliability
and hence
increase risk but they also increase severity.
As I've said, that's misinformation. Do you have any real MTBF testing data
that backs up your claim, or is it just speculation?
i.e. any one drive of a multiple
on 11/13/01 1:01 AM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 11/11/01 10:21 PM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the limit of a 32bit PCI bus at 133MHz (but still in the limits of an
Adaptec 29160 controller)
The standard PCI bus is 33 MHz (or 66MHz), NOT 133MHz.
channels maybe. Am I understanding things
correctly?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Snyder
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 7:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
on 11/12/01 10:34 PM
Ezio wrote:
Congratulations for the professional results Rob ! :-)
Thanks! Now if I can get articles printed in mags where I get *paid* for
it...
I have 3 U160 IBM 1rpm and NO FANS at all
while the box is a cheap box I have assembled
on my own with a 350W power supply ( 20$ the
power
Preben,
At 12:34 11/11/01 +0100, you wrote:
Lastly, these stand alone Raid cards - unlike raid solutions on
motherbords - have their own processors on board which takes over all the
hard work, freeing up your system processor.
I knew that RAID in software (e.g. as part of Windows NT4)
Just thought I would add that on single user systems dedicating memory slightly
greater than scan size to file cache will give as near instant write response as your
software and processor is capable of achieving (even non-raid). In fact during write
opertions raid 0 on a memory handicapped
It of course depends on the motherboard. Several
manufacturers in the retail market (e.g. Tyan,
Supermicro) do make motherboards with SCSI raid
options in which the raid controller handles the
processing. The IDE based raid options, to the best of
my knowledge, do not handle the processing. I
Thus in the case of SCSI where you cannot (by definition) overcome the
number of 6 devices x chain/controller,
WHAT SCSI are you talking about? Try 16. not 6.
How many addresses have you per controller ?
from 0 to 6 = 7 but 1 is the controller itself.
SCSI is not IBM SSA . SCSI =
Many motherboard RAID controllers don't have extra processing capacity,
they just have the hardware controller and firmware for BIOS support.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Bloor) wrote:
Preben,
At 12:34 11/11/01 +0100, you wrote:
Lastly, these stand alone Raid cards - unlike raid solutions
I'll take this off list .
Sincerely.
Ezio
www.lucenti.com e-photography site
- Original Message -
From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 4:50 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
Thus in the case
with 32bit adapters).
Sincerely.
Ezio
www.lucenti.com e-photography
site
- Original Message -
From: "Austin Franklin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 4:50
PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and
images
Thus i
It *IS* more unsafe to use RAID0. And MTBF *IS* additive.
No and no. I designed SCSI controllers and disk subsystems (for the
storage
division of one of the top computer manufacturers) for years, as well
as
tested disk subsystems. I know how MTBF is determined.
Seems like you have
No one uses narrow SCSI for RAID, and it doesn't have to be SSA. SCSI
uses
four bits for SCSI ID, which makes SIXTEEN devices.
The U-160 card I know (Adaptec 29160) allows the connection of 7 devices
each controller while permitting 16 addresses.
The 7 device limit applies if you connect
No one uses narrow SCSI for RAID, and it doesn't have to be SSA. SCSI
uses
four bits for SCSI ID, which makes SIXTEEN devices.
The U-160 card I know (Adaptec 29160) allows the connection of 7 devices
each controller while permitting 16 addresses.
A device IS the same as a SCSI address in
Seems like you have done everything and also know everything.
ROTFLMAO
--
Lawrence W. Smith Photography
http://www.lwsphoto.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Seems like you have done everything and also know everything.
Not everything, but having been an engineer for 25 years, I have done many
projects including digital imaging systems, and SCSI systems... What I do
know, I know, and what I don't know, I know I don't know. I don't just make
things
... The biggest increase in performance is from one to
two drives,
Absolutely, and that's per channel, so a two channel system would greatly
benefit from four drives, two on each channel.
Moreno, thanks for your post, it was right on the money.
on 11/12/01 12:22 AM, LAURIE SOLOMON at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To Preben:
Thanks for your response and patience. The Abit board does permit JBOD; but
it does not provide RAID 5 as you have noted. When I asked about what
appeared to be a contradiction between what you suggested and what
on 11/12/01 4:07 AM, Mike Bloor at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Preben,
At 12:34 11/11/01 +0100, you wrote:
Lastly, these stand alone Raid cards - unlike raid solutions on
motherbords - have their own processors on board which takes over all the
hard work, freeing up your system processor.
the web site you mentioned and do some
further research. Thanks for the reference.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Snyder
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 8:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD
on 11/11/01 10:21 PM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the limit of a 32bit PCI bus at 133MHz (but still in the limits of an
Adaptec 29160 controller)
The standard PCI bus is 33 MHz (or 66MHz), NOT 133MHz. Perhaps you mean
132M BYTES/sec? Even at that, you can't get near %80
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ezio c/o TIN
Sent: 10 November 2001 21:18
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
I would recommend to buy a U-160 SCSI ... from e-bay ... I have just
done this to integrate the other 3 U-160 I have and I have bought
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ezio c/o TIN
Sent: 10 November 2001 21:18
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
I would recommend to buy a U-160 SCSI ... from e-bay ... I have just
done this to integrate
Andrea de Polo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a CreoScitex scanner with attached a, Apple G4 Silver 733 with OS
9.2.1 and 1GB of ram;
I noticed that the internal HD is a slow 5400rpm UltraAta HD; question:
since I work only with
Photoshop and my images are about 60mb in size and I just have
This is an 80-pin, meant to be put in a rack mount. You can get an adapter,
but you're limited in the number of drives you can use in a chain with
adapters and the adapters are about $25.
Better to find a 68pin.
Tom
From: Ezio c/o TIN
Quantum 10KRPM 18GB ultra160 Scsi Raid DUTCH
Item #
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
I have just ordered a 60 Gig Maxtor ATA 100 drive (ATA 133 is also
available) I have done this because it is far cheaper than buying
another 36 gig drive to go on my U160 SCSI channel. I can get the Maxtor
drives for around 60 UK pounds
PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 9:46 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
I have just ordered a 60 Gig Maxtor ATA 100 drive (ATA 133 is also
available) I have done this because it is far cheaper than buying
another 36 gig drive to go on my U160 SCSI channel
5:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and
images
IMO the best price/performance/data safety setup is
IDE Raid 5. If you buy a
Ide Raid 5 card (Adaptec makes a good one: 2400A,
which sells for around 300
US) you can then connect, say four IDE 100GB
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 7:53 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
Preben,
Since you seem to be knowledgeable about IDE RAID matters, I wish to make
use of your knowledge as a resource even if it is OT for this list. I
recently bought an ABIT
Laurie wrote:
(spanning). I understand what RAID 1 (mirroring) is and how
it works; but I really do not understand how RAID 0 works or
what parallel operation of the two drives on the channel means
and entails.
Striping simply means that data is interleaved on different disks. In a
simple
about
it. RAID 0+1 or RAID 5 are much better ideas.
Paul Wilson
-Original Message-
From: Robert Meier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 4:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
Laurie,
spanning: The drives
. Not even in the case of a lower amount of data requested.
Sincerely.
Ezio
www.lucenti.com e-photography site
- Original Message -
From: Pat Perez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 10:00 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
I just wanted to note that RAID 0 is, in most cases, a bad idea.
The reason
is that if you stripe your data across multiple disks and one fails, you
lose all the data. It's better to split the files up among many, smaller
logical drives. It's great from a performance standpoint but that's
- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 10:53 PM
Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
IMO the higher RAID types are fine for servers, but not worth the hassle
for home use. I
Paul wrote:
I just wanted to note that RAID 0 is, in most cases,
a bad idea. The reason is that if you stripe your
data across multiple disks and one fails, you
lose all the data.
This is true - however most of us rely on one hard drive for *everything*.
Striping across two drives gives
Ezio wrote:
I really cannot understand why it would be needed such a complication and
dependancy from the controller vendor when the SCSI hard drives cost almost
the same (or 20% more max) of IDE hard drives !
Ezio, I know we've been here before, but SCSI isn't a cheap option for everyone.
--- Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wanted to note that RAID 0 is, in most cases, a bad idea.
The reason
is that if you stripe your data across multiple disks and one
fails, you
lose all the data. It's better to split the files up among many,
smaller
logical drives.
Also consider that striping doubles your chances of losing your
data
NO it does not. MTBF is NOT additive. Whether you have 1 or 100 devices
that have a MTBF of 10,000 hours, the MTBF of the system is still 10,000
hours.
Thus in the case of SCSI where you cannot (by definition) overcome the
number of 6 devices x chain/controller,
WHAT SCSI are you talking about? Try 16. not 6.
BTW , this method compulsorily implies a DOUBLE WRITING need i.e.
write the
data + write the new parity (even if on another disk)
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 7:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
I just wanted to note that RAID 0 is, in most cases, a bad idea.
The reason
is that if you stripe your data across multiple disks and
one fails
on 11/11/01 1:53 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Preben,
Since you seem to be knowledgeable about IDE RAID matters, I wish to make
use of your knowledge as a resource even if it is OT for this list. I
recently bought an ABIT motherboard with RAID. The manual is not very
The RAID 0 is taking half
the data and
pushing it to one hard drive, and the other half to the second,
giving you a
slight edge in speed since the bus to each hard drive can be loaded while
the other hard drive is munching on the data it just received.
Not if implemented correctly. If
-
From: LAURIE SOLOMON [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 7:53 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
Preben,
Since you seem to be knowledgeable about IDE RAID matters, I wish to make
use of your knowledge as a resource even
My point is that, with RAID 0, if one disk fails the data on all
the disks
is lost.
And if you have one disk, and it fails, all data is lost.
Also, MTBF is additive in this case because of what I previously
said.
No it is NOT. I designed RAID controllers and disk subsystems, as well
, November 12, 2001 4:21 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
Thus in the case of SCSI where you cannot (by definition) overcome the
number of 6 devices x chain/controller,
WHAT SCSI are you talking about? Try 16. not 6.
BTW , this method compulsorily implies
after.
Sincerely.
Ezio
www.lucenti.com e-photography site
- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 3:06 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
Ezio wrote:
I really cannot
It *IS* more unsafe to use RAID0. And MTBF *IS* additive.
No and no. I designed SCSI controllers and disk subsystems (for the storage
division of one of the top computer manufacturers) for years, as well as
tested disk subsystems. I know how MTBF is determined.
Actually,
more exactly it
Hi Andrea--
First allocate around 300MB to Photoshop and see if this
significantly reduces the amount of disk accesses. The logic here is
that Photoshop needs working space (for each image you have open?) of
about 3 times the image size, plus it needs space for its code to
run, plus any
I would recommend to buy a U-160 SCSI ... from e-bay ... I have just done
this to integrate the other 3 U-160 I have and I have bought for 102US $ a
18GB IBM 1 rpm brand new under warranty.
A 36GB 1rpm also IBM U-160 is rated for 170 US $ ...
Sincerely.
Ezio
www.lucenti.com
62 matches
Mail list logo
