🚀 go-pugleaf

David H. Lipman <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
message news:EcbAb.363$vg4.314@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...

> Using RAID 5, I can use 5 x 80GB drives and
> get 320GB instead of buying two 250GB drives.

And still pay much more in total than when using IDE
mirroring on the motherboard or mirroring in the OS.

> As for use of mirroring software, never.

Mindless, as always.

> Too much overhead *always* use hardware based RAID solutions.

Not a fucking clue. Particularly with the scenario being
discussed, just keeping photos. Fuck all overhead when a new
photo isnt added very often enough to matter and it always
takes some time to get new photos into the system anyway.

And you MUST have more than any form of RAID or mirroring to
protect against the real risks of system theft, fire or flood etc anyway.

The only thing that makes any sense currently is to write
new photos to multiple DVDs once they have been edited
etc and keep at least one of the copys offsite.

While superficially the time to write to DVDs isnt trivial,
its actually a small part of the total time involved with a
new photo with everything from taking the photo, getting
it into the PC, editing it, saving it to multiple DVDs etc.

> In addition, you suggest the best solution

Pity RAID5 SCSI doesnt qualify because it does NOT protect
against the very real risks of system theft, fire or flood etc.

> and work you way down not the worst solutuion

More utterly mindless silly stuff.

> and work your way up.

Wank your way in either direction in your case. Mindlessly wank in fact.

> That is why I start at RAID 5 SCSI.

More fool you when it does NOT protect against
the very real risks of system theft, fire or flood etc.

> That's the starting point

Only for fools like you that aint gotta
clue about what real backup is about.

> and the OP can go down the list.

The only thing that makes any sense at all is to ensure
that there is real protection against the very real risks
of system theft, fire or flood etc and THEN consider if
there is the cost of any form of mirroring is justified at all.

If the OP decides that in the unlikely event of the death
of the new drive, that what photos need to be back on the
replacement from the DVD backups need to be available
quickly, mirroring may be justified, at twice the price.

> And as also stated there is RAID 5 SATA.

You aint even established any need for the high availability
that RAID5 brings with it with a personal desktop system.
Mirroring may well be all thats actually needed if any
duplication is required at all with real backup in place.

> I was just at SeaGate
> Look at this SCSI drive
> Seagate ST336607LC MTBF (Hours)  1,200,000 hours

A completely irrelevant number with a personal desktop system.

> I looked at SATA and Ultra ATA drives.  They
> don't even list the MTBF value for these drives.

Another lie. They're in the product manuals, stupid.

> Why ?

Because MTBFs are completely useless, fool.

> because they have a much lower MTBF maybe 80K hours at best.

Another lie. Try 600K, liar.

> Meaning, they have a higher failure rate.

Not a fucking clue.

> Below are three drives; SATA Ultra ATA and SCSI all approx 80GB.

A size thats completely useless for the OP.

> The drives have been selected to be similar to level the playing field.

The size has actually been selected to make SCSI
look better, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

> However, the SCSI drive in all aspects beats
> the SATA and Ultra ATA except in price.

Pity that the real comparison between a single ATA 250GB
drive and SCSI RAID5 total price of the same capacity is
nothing like your flagrantly dishonest comparison.

And when the RAID5 SCSI will still need the same backup
approach to protect against the very real risks of system
theft, fire or flood etc, you cant get away with claiming that
RAID5 SCSI gives more protection for the MUCH higher price.

The ONLY thing it gives is higher availability and that is very
unlikely to be justifiable with a personal desktop system.

> The SCSI is more expensive.

MUCH more expensive in fact when the correct comparison is done.

> rice comparisons done at http://www.cdw.com/

> SATA drive
>  Model Number:ST380013AS
> CDW Price $119.85

The real drive should have been
Maxtor DiamondMax 16, 250GB Hard Drive
CDW Price $267.47

Pity you completely ignored the cost of the RAID5
SCSI hardware. Thats gunna be free from the
fairys at the bottom of the garden or Santa eh ?

> Capacity:80 GB
> Speed:7200 rpm
> Seek time:8.5 ms avg
> Interface:Serial ATA
> Internal Transfer Rate (Mbits/sec) 683
> Max. External Transfer Rate (Mbytes/sec) 150
> Avg. Sustained Transfer Rate (Mbytes/sec) >58
> Average Seek (msec) 8.5
> Average Latency (msec) 4.16
> Multisegmented Cache 8192
> Spindle Speed (RPM) 7200
>
> Ultra ATA drive
> Model Number:ST380011A
> CDW price: $86.95
> Capacity:80 GB
> Speed:7200 rpm
> Seek time:8.5 ms avg
> Interface:Ultra ATA/100
> Internal Transfer Rate (Mbits/sec) 683
> Max. External Transfer Rate (Mbytes/sec) 100
> Avg. Sustained Transfer Rate (Mbytes/sec) >58
> Average Seek (msec) 8.5
> Average Latency (msec) 4.16
> Multisegmented Cache 2048
> Spindle Speed (RPM) 7200
>
> Ultra320 SCSI drive
>  Model Number:ST373307LW
> CDW price: $409.50

And since you will need 5 of those, thats $2,050 for the drives alone.
And you'll need to add the cost of the RAID5 SCSI to that.

Hang on, thats OVER TEN TIMES THE COST
OF THE ONLY SENSIBLE APPROACH.

Game, set and match, I believe.

> Capacity:73 GB
> Speed:10000 rpm
> Seek time:4.7 ms avg
> Interface:Ultra320 SCSI
> MTBF (Hours)  1,200,000 hours
>  Internal Transfer Rate, ZBR (Mbits/sec) 475-840
> Internal Formatted Transfer Rate (Mbytes/sec) 43-78
> External Transfer Rate (mbytes/sec)   320
> Track-to-track Seek Read/Write (msec) 0.3/0.5
> Average Seek Read/Write (msec) 4.7/5.2
> Average Latency (msec) 2.99
> Spindle Speed (RPM) 10000


> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:m9ydnV17zsB9tEyi4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> | Your approach is illogical and irrational. You know it, but refuse to admit
> | it.
> |
> | The approach I use, which is, uh, rational, is two IDE hard drives and
> | decent mirroring software.
> |
> | Heck of a lot cheaper than any SCSI Raid solution. SCSI is not measureably
> | more reliable than today's IDE drives.
> |
> |
> | Tom
> |
>
>