🚀 go-pugleaf

You cannot accomplish that in a Dimension 4550.  There are not 5 spots for
drives NOR enough power supply. You could also not do it for the same price
as the pair of 250GB drives.

You are making suggestions that make no sense for the 4550.

I could probably get an IBM Shark array to work too, for a couple hundred
thousand.

I also did not clarify my comment. I do not use active, full time mirror. I
should have said automated backup software. I happen to use Iomega's
QuikSync which is 'near real time' and has trivial overhead.

You are providing no value to the original poster with suggestions that are
not appropriate for her configuration.

Tom
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:EcbAb.363$vg4.314@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> Tom:
>
> Using RAID 5, I can use 5 x 80GB drives and get 320GB instead of buying
two 250GB drives.
> As for use of mirroring software, never.  Too much overhead *always* use
hardware based RAID
> solutions.
>
> In addition, you suggest the best solution and work you way down not the
worst solutuion and
> work your way up.  That is why I start at RAID 5 SCSI.  That's the
starting point and the OP
> can go down the list.  And as also stated there is RAID 5 SATA.
>
> I was just at SeaGate
> Look at this SCSI drive
> Seagate ST336607LC MTBF (Hours)  1,200,000 hours
>
> I looked at SATA and Ultra ATA drives.  They don't even list the MTBF
value for these
> drives.  Why ? because they have a much lower MTBF maybe 80K hours at
best.  Meaning, they
> have a higher failure rate.   Below are three drives; SATA Ultra ATA and
SCSI all approx
> 80GB.  The drives have been selected to be similar to level the playing
field.  However, the
> SCSI drive in all aspects beats the SATA and Ultra ATA except in price.
The SCSI is more
> expensive.  rice comparisons done at http://www.cdw.com/
>
> SATA drive
>  Model Number:ST380013AS
> CDW Price $119.85
> 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
> 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
>
>
> Dave
>
> "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
> |
>
>