J. Clarke
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:26 am Post subject:
Re: New HDD's for older PC... |
|
|
Erszm wrote:
| Quote: | I have an older big (huge) box here that I'm wanting to make more use out
of again.
Built the thing between late 1999 and early 2000. Complete spurge on
everything at the time. You know the deal -- throw lots of cash for an
"ultimate lifespan" of about five minutes before everything starts to
become dated and end up just using it as a simple dumb file server a few
years
later. Starting a couple years ago, I've began using laptops as my
"working" computers and my current laptop has completetly replaced my need
for a "working" desktop.
So now the big beast is just a file dumpster, but it currently only has
18GB
worth of HDD. I'm wanting to add more HDD space, as much as within
reason, but not sure of which type of interface to go with that will the
deliver the
"best bang for the buck" and also prove reliable long-term. I haven't
really followed the "latest and greatest" of HDD interfaces with desktops,
so not sure if I should just use what I have or get a PCI controller for
[whatever]. I'd prefer to just use what I have. Files will mainly be
[media
stuff.
Supermicro P6DBU Dual PentiumIII m/b (100Mhz FSB, HIP4006BCB VR for
Coppermine)
Two PentiumIII's: 850Mhz, 256/100/1.65v/SL1 (Coppermine)
1GB SDRAM
I/O: Two (E)IDE with UltraDMA33 and Mode4 support
Adaptec AIC-7890 SCSI (Onboard): SCSI, UW SCSI, Ultra2 LVD/SE SCSI
Adaptec ARO-1130C RAIDport III Controller (PCI/RAIDport)
HDD's: Two IBM DNES-309170W (Ultra2 LVD/SE SCSI, 9.1GB)
I don't remember the exact cost, but do recall thinking that I could've
went
with like 6x the same capacity with (E)IDE at the time. I did later add
an
(E)IDE HDD, but it developed bad sectors within just a couple years. The
SCSI drives, however, have been grinding away for nearly six years now and
remain rock solid! Don't know if that is just luck or testament of SCSI
vs
(E)IDE, but I'd say I got my money's worth in the long run. Found some
sources for SCSI U2W LVD/SE HDD's that checked out well on reseller
ratings, so considering just getting a bunch of these drives -- which
would allow full use of the RAID anyway.
Case: Sixteen (16!) 5.25" Bay Full Super Tower, with two 400W P/S's
Yes, this case is an absolute beast. At the time, I was so annoyed at
always struggling for space inside cases in the past, that I decided that
the next case would be the "absolute biggest one I could find". It stands
about five feet tall and is on caster wheels. Its actually a really nice
case though, with multi-level-butterfly side panels for easy inside
access, front doors with locking mechs, lots of flashy device LEDs and,
pointless
I'll admit, 7-segment LED arrays. Very streamlined and "professional
looking". Often asked by others, upon their first seeing it, if it
doubles
as a hot water heater or big de-humidifier because of it's size. Fiance
calls it a coffin and says if I were to die, she'd bury me in it. Today,
it's home is hidden inside a closet, taking up much of the closet. Threw
an 802.11a card into it, added a Matrix Orbital LCD panel along with a
keypad, to give menu functionality for housekeeping tasks without needing
to have a
monitor and keyboard in the closet too. Anyway, the case can definetly
accommodate a bunch more HDD's. (It probably could even accommodate a
coat rack inside as well.)
Just wondering, stick with I have (for HDD I/O) or start looking at new
HDD
(PCI) control cards? Ultimate speed isn't a priority, just seeking the
"best bang for the buck" speed and reliablity wise.
|
Bang for the buck right now would be 250 gig ATA or SATA drives. Five of
those and a good RAID controller and you've got a very nice server with a
terabyte of storage. Put 5 hot-swap cages in that machine and fill them
with 400 gig drives and you've got 10 terabytes, but you'd need multiple
RAID controllers.
Using old SCSI drives in a RAID would get you more storage than you have,
but I suspect that by the time you're up to 250 gig you'll have more in it
than it would cost you to just stick a couple of 250s in and mirror them.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
Erzsm
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:01 am Post subject:
Re: New HDD's for older PC... |
|
|
"Dr. Anton T. Squeegee" wrote in message
| Quote: | You and me both. He just found his way into my filter file, in
fact. Pretty amazing how easily some folks forget that there's a human
being on the other end of any Usenet post.
|
Yep, he quickly became the 37th entrant into my troll filter as well. I
couldn't think of anything more boring to get emotional and insulting over
than IDE vs SCSI. Oh well. I figure such types either have some sort of
disorder or are just common trolls. He is a strange one and probably the
former. Definetly not the life of any party.
| Quote: | Oh, most definitely, and they're still very usable. It's just that
the big companies want the latest and (supposedly) greatest, so they
retire what I consider to be barely-used equipment, equipment that can
be snapped up at bargain-basement prices.
One abbreviation: DLT. At least that's the one that's most
affordable to most hobbyists. I don't know any that have the budget to
afford SDLT systems, or the big multi-terabyte backup libraries.
|
Yep, I definetly also have the philosophy of "less is more". The other
night ordered a bucket full of older SCSI U2W's. They will do the job
without needing new supporting hardware and I'll even be able to RAID.
Cheers!
E |
|
chrisv
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:35 pm Post subject:
Re: New HDD's for older PC... |
|
|
Ron Speed (123) wrote:
| Quote: | Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee <SpammersAreVermin@dev.null
wrote just the puerile shit you'd expect from
a desperately cowering gutless fuckwit.
|
Actually, Ron, it's obvious that YOU are the puerile one here. So,
the above is just another one of your lies. Pathetic, really. |
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in