🚀 go-pugleaf

Dice wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> Any unnecessary complexity introduces more points of failure

>> Thats what YOU are doing with multiple USB external enclosures.

> Except if you had read what he is planning you would realize he isn't going to 
> be dealing with multiple USB external enclosures.

In practice he is, just putting them in a single housing.

Electrically they are still separate, with a separate USB connection to each 
drive.

>> They are notorious for hassles over time compared with the MUCH
>> more robust technology of a standalone server with the drives in that.

> Really? You base this on what? I certainly haven't seen it.

You need to get out more. Have a read thru comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
alone searching on USB and weep.

>> And it makes a lot more sense to not be farting around with discarded
>> 80G drives at all and to replace them all with a 400G drive instead.

> Yes, but why waste the 80GB drives if you have them?

Basically because its too much hassle to fart around with USB
to IDE bridges for each drive and some way to house them.

> Sometimes the most educational/fun parts of computer technology is 'farting 
> around' with things.

He has said repeately that he isnt interested in wasting his time.

If he does want to use the spare 80G drives, the only thing that makes any
sense is a separate linux based server and do the RAID5 at the software level.

But even that makes no real sense over say a 400G drive.

It just a rather silly technowank.