Recent content by PCcashCow

I have to say gigabyte networks allow for High performance NASs to really make the better option. Neither.

Humm...having last words, thinks they are always right without deviations, inflated idea of own importance to the topic, explanation marks.......nope I think I got that dead on. Or is mkaibear a new synonym we are unaware of and should us it in proper manner instead?

Raid 1 in at the busniess level offers a fault tolerance for when one drive goes down, it can either seemlessly rebuild or be Hot Swaped in the event of a dead drive. .....which I'm sure I'm waisting my breath on telling. Adding backups via any media offers data security in which you can perform...

Your a little narcissistic this Friday...relax.

You could use Bart PW, Sysprep, and create a bootble Ghost disk and just image the drive. You would only need to provide the raid driver, XP should pick everything else up. If this is your route, copy the i386 folder to the root.

Just to clarify: I was pointing out that it is possible, but not on Vista...yet.

Disk errors other than SMART reporting failures are typically form a bad cable. You may want to run the Seatools against the disk (bootable). If the drive is having issues, you'll know from there. Other wise be sure you have not modified jumpers for board compatibility.

Depending on your hardware you should be able to boot fine into multiple OS's across three drives. All drives seem to be IDE, so you would need two channels, but perferrible four to do so. In fact it simplifies things when using a Grub loader to select which drive to boot from after POST...

Well, no. What happened is that there were those who thought larger drives inflated the risk for data loss because said drive held more data which put more emphasis on fault tolerance. So some thought that a larger number of smaller drives were safer was the way to go because the Data Physically...

You probably have designed your system, but another take on a your trying to build would to be to set up a base W2k3 (XP would work too) with small SAS drives. Then I would suggest you build a SATA or SCSI SAN with an open source app. Use an open source os tha enables you to create volumes...

It is possible, but it wont fool Vista... not yet anyway. It's going to look physical addressing on the memory you add to it. So it wont look across the raid, just one physical device.

The stragevault is more of an enterprise|SMB backup solution. Your most likely referring to the HP Media Vault, which is actully prettry decent if your price out dollars to gigs and hardware. I would go with HP.

Thats really system dependant. Your going to saturate the bus fater with those SCSI on a PCI 2.0 interface. So dont be surprised its less or equal. If they were 320 drives, you might see better, but again the drives have to wait becuase the pipes are only so big for SCSI burst.

One note: PCIXpress is not a formfactor, PICx and PICe. When you ment is you have a PICe video card. Only reason I make the correction is becuase most 160 SCSI cards are PCIx interface (66, 100, 133mhz). Your mobo can will allow a PCIx card becuase most all controllers are PCI 2.0 compliant...

First off, What kind of data base? That is a 160 card, in terms of SCSI, we are past that, past 320, and onto SAS as a growing standard. If this is going to be a production server I would recommend going with U320 drives in a raid 5. If you dont want to spend that money, then go with a SATA...