Best configuration of drives?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Ron Reaugh wrote:

>
> "Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:40a2538a.48628353@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> >In fact, it will do just the opposite due to the
>> >decreased signal quality associated with round cables.
>>
>> I haven't heard that one.
>
> No one else has either. There's no significant signal quality issue in a
> good round. cable.

Do you have a source for this hypothetical "good round cable"? With the
test results to support your contention of "goodness"?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Bob]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Fri, 14 May 2004 00:24:22 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net>
wrote:

>The previously mentioned 250GB drives each hold several cycles.

I assume you can direct the RAID 1 mirror to different partitions. But
that's an extra step.

I was thinking of cheap small drives in cheap removeable trays. That
way if an entire drive goes south, you have other drives available.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett

 

[Bob]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Thu, 13 May 2004 14:22:47 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
<ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote:

>There are no storage drivers in DOS. IBM's BIOS was used, or third party stuff
>in config.sys.

I traced thru what I thought was the "installable device driver" for
the floppy disks in the system part of DOS, which I believe was at
CS:IP=80:00H. But that was indeed a long time ago.

I am not talking about the BIOS routines but the ones called thru INT
28H, the DOS system call


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40a414e8.44421725@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 00:24:22 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The previously mentioned 250GB drives each hold several cycles.
>
> I assume you can direct the RAID 1 mirror to different partitions. But
> that's an extra step.
>
> I was thinking of cheap small drives in cheap removeable trays. That
> way if an entire drive goes south, you have other drives available.

I'm not following. Are you talking about RAID 1 drives or backup drives
with compressed image files?

Actually on one server I use two Raptors in RAID 1 and keep a third on
another machine with yesterday's clone for optimal restart time in case of a
fundamental software lockup. Then there's the offsite rotation of two 250GB
SATA drives with the compressed image files of the server and workstations.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40a415b1.44623094@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 14:22:47 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
> <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote:
>
> >There are no storage drivers in DOS. IBM's BIOS was used, or third party
stuff
> >in config.sys.
>
> I traced thru what I thought was the "installable device driver" for
> the floppy disks in the system part of DOS, which I believe was at
> CS:IP=80:00H. But that was indeed a long time ago.
>
> I am not talking about the BIOS routines but the ones called thru INT
> 28H, the DOS system call

That sounds right but I haven't been there in a long time.

 

[Bob]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Fri, 14 May 2004 01:23:25 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net>
wrote:

>> I was thinking of cheap small drives in cheap removeable trays. That
>> way if an entire drive goes south, you have other drives available.

>I'm not following. Are you talking about RAID 1 drives or backup drives
>with compressed image files?

In the statement above I was talking only about the RAID 1 part of the
overall configuration. I was contrasting your huge drives with my
desire to have a cheap system. Whereas you get multiple volumes on
those huge drives, you pay a price for it - first there is the cost of
the huge drives and there is the risk that the drive will die on you.

With multiple small cheap drives I would swap them in one after the
other creating multi-period disaster-recovery volumes. For example, if
I used a configuration that had 6 drives, I could put 2 in the RAID 1
system, and have 4 to rotate thru the mirror each week for 1 month.

One thing I like about that is you can pick and choose which week in
the past to restore from. For example, I got burnt badly a short while
ago by one of Microsoft's so-called hot patches. The damn thing really
messed up IE, which crashed an application that uses things from IE
extensively. I tried to back out the patch but no luck. I tried to
repair the Win2K operating system, including reinstalling SP4 but no
luck. So I restored the system with the "archive" I had made with
Drive Image Pro.

That "archive" was 6 weeks old which in this case was a good thing
because I had installed hot patches as far back as 3 weeks. By going
back longer than that I ensured I was getting a hot-patch-free
restore. My point is that if you keep 4 weeks of "archives", you can
decide to go back to any one of them based on the history of updates
along the way.

This whole scheme hinges on the ability to find a RAID 1 controller -
either PCI-based or mainboard-based, which will allow the use of an
"archive" for disaster recover. I am sure that all the controllers
allow for taking a drive out and rebuilding the mirror on a different
drive, thereby creating the "archive" drive on the shelf for later use
if necessary. The question seems to be whether you could then pull the
2 current RAID 1 drives and use the "archive" drive to start over.

Separately from all this RAID 1 configuration is the business of a
daily backup to a third drive bad with a very small drive using a
differential backup strategy. That is not the same as an incremental
backup because with the differential backup the archive bit is not
set. Therefore the same files get backed up each time. However you can
require that each backup uses the same backup file which means that
the size of that backup file will not get too large. Hence the ability
to use a very small drive. I am using a 4GB drive which has more than
enough capacity for my 300KB backup file - which uses less than
200KB because I compress it too.

I suppose the single most valuable thing I have discovered on this
forum is that there is no excuse for someone not to have a way to
restore his system no matter what happens. If I had been keeping daily
backups on that very small drive, then when I did the 6-week old
disaster recovery restore I would have been able to bring it up to
date because before I would have replaced the current drive contents
with the old "archive" I would have done a manual backup to flush
everything to a file.

What could be easier than all that?


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett

 

[Bob]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Fri, 14 May 2004 01:24:57 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net>
wrote:

>> I am not talking about the BIOS routines but the ones called thru INT
>> 28H, the DOS system call

>That sounds right but I haven't been there in a long time.

Neither have I. But it's fun to recall some of the adventures of the
early days of PCs. I wonder how many know what an Osborn was.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett

 

[Bob]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Fri, 14 May 2004 00:24:41 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Do you have a source for this hypothetical "good round cable"? With the
>test results to support your contention of "goodness"?

www.directron.com

The correct description is "rounded", not "round". The cables
described at Directron are machine rounded. They are not the typical
round cable we see in standard multi-wire configurations like
telephone cable.

You are aware that ribbon cables are usually bound together in a loose
bundle with ties and that they are very close to sources of electrical
noise.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett

 

[Slug]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Thu, 13 May 2004 20:06:08 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote:


>Actually that is the only solution available to you unless you want to
>go to USB or FW I suppose you could cut a small hole near the IDE
>connector on the mainboard and string a ribbon cable thru the side of
>the case to an external box where the drives are kept. Or you could
>take the cover off permanently and rig an external box in the open
>area.
>
>One of the most important advantages of integrating your own computer
>is the selection of components, and case selection tops the list
>because that's what you have to decide first. You can buy a Dell
>cheaper than building your own machine, and it will serve you well
>over the years. But it will also restrict your innovative impulses
>over the years, which means you are more likely to swap it out - and
>the cost over the years is higher.
>
>I built a machine in 1999 that I am still using. That's an unheard of
>5 years usage from the same machine. But it was built right the first
>time so I have no pressing need to upgrade it. Ziff Davis has
>demonstrated that a 500 MHz machine is all one really needs for
>everyday computing.
>
>If I had a need for another machine, I would have to build it myself
>because nothing is available at low cost that will satisfy my specs
>for that new machine. Until the need arises, I am satisfied with my
>current machine, which I designed with longevity in mind.


Man, I'm surrounded by morons. I don't need a new case. I have two
PC's and built both of them myself. The case on this one is an Antec
1080 tower. Ron's solution to cabling is anal and not necessary. There
are no issues with putting two HDD's on IDE1 and two optical drives on
IDE2 on contemporary mb's. Get out of the stone age you idiots.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In article <3qcaa018rj38e6uf8kdh597p5m5b7oeudr@4ax.com>,
slug@no_email.here says...
> Man, I'm surrounded by morons. I don't need a new case. I have two
> PC's and built both of them myself. The case on this one is an Antec
> 1080 tower. Ron's solution to cabling is anal and not necessary. There
> are no issues with putting two HDD's on IDE1 and two optical drives on
> IDE2 on contemporary mb's. Get out of the stone age you idiots.
>

Given the large variation of opinion on the subject, I'd
have to say it's a bit YMMV when it comes to putting
multiple devices on the same IDE cable. Back in the
stone ages, it was pretty common to have issues. Today,
you're less likely to have issues, but it's something to
keep in mind as a possible cause if you do have trouble.

If you can fit both HDDs on the one IDE cable and both
opticals on the other IDE cable and it runs fine, great.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Slug" <slug@no_email.here> wrote in message
news:3qcaa018rj38e6uf8kdh597p5m5b7oeudr@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 20:06:08 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote:
>
>
> >Actually that is the only solution available to you unless you want to
> >go to USB or FW I suppose you could cut a small hole near the IDE
> >connector on the mainboard and string a ribbon cable thru the side of
> >the case to an external box where the drives are kept. Or you could
> >take the cover off permanently and rig an external box in the open
> >area.
> >
> >One of the most important advantages of integrating your own computer
> >is the selection of components, and case selection tops the list
> >because that's what you have to decide first. You can buy a Dell
> >cheaper than building your own machine, and it will serve you well
> >over the years. But it will also restrict your innovative impulses
> >over the years, which means you are more likely to swap it out - and
> >the cost over the years is higher.
> >
> >I built a machine in 1999 that I am still using. That's an unheard of
> >5 years usage from the same machine. But it was built right the first
> >time so I have no pressing need to upgrade it. Ziff Davis has
> >demonstrated that a 500 MHz machine is all one really needs for
> >everyday computing.
> >
> >If I had a need for another machine, I would have to build it myself
> >because nothing is available at low cost that will satisfy my specs
> >for that new machine. Until the need arises, I am satisfied with my
> >current machine, which I designed with longevity in mind.
>
>
> Man, I'm surrounded by morons. I don't need a new case. I have two
> PC's and built both of them myself.

I think we all figured that one out.

> The case on this one is an Antec
> 1080 tower. Ron's solution to cabling is anal and not necessary. There
> are no issues with putting two HDD's on IDE1 and two optical drives on
> IDE2 on contemporary mb's.

Wrong.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sat, 15 May 2004 00:02:36 -0400, Toshi1873 <toshi1873@nowhere.com>
wrote:


>Given the large variation of opinion on the subject, I'd
>have to say it's a bit YMMV when it comes to putting
>multiple devices on the same IDE cable. Back in the
>stone ages, it was pretty common to have issues. Today,
>you're less likely to have issues, but it's something to
>keep in mind as a possible cause if you do have trouble.
>
>If you can fit both HDDs on the one IDE cable and both
>opticals on the other IDE cable and it runs fine, great.

I've never had an isuue with it. Think about rotten Ronnie's cabling
idea if you only have the two IDE ports, not using cables over 18",
and it is just plain stupid.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sat, 15 May 2004 02:53:14 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net>
wrote:


>
>Wrong.

I bet you still think devices can't share IRQ's too.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

p.s. Let's analyze Ron's recommended configuration in depth. Here is
what we have, 2 HDD's and 2 optical drives on 2 IDE cables and a
fanbus all being needed to be placed in the 5 1/2" slots. OK, first he
says to me put the HDD's below or above the optical drives in the 5
1/2" slots. You can't put the HDD's below the optical drives if the
HDD's are to be master. End connector of IDE cable is for master so
putting the HDD's below the optical drive is physically impossible
because of how the drives need to be placed on the cable so each HDD
needs to go above each optical drive. Then we have the probelm of
heat, optical drives generate a fair amount of heat when in use so we
don't want any HDD right next to an optical drive, that means an empty
5 1/2" slot btween each optical drive and HDD. Below is the
configuration we need of the 5 1/2" slots to meet Ron's anal
standards.

Fanbus
HDD
open space
Optical drive
open space
HDD
open space
Optical drive

or we could use

HDD
open space
Optical drive
open space
HDD
open space
Optical drive
Fanbus

This means I need to go out and buy an expensive server tower with
eight 5 1/2" drive bays because there is no standard PC case with
eight 5 1/2" slots. Then of course the top HDD and optical drive
require an IDE cable well over 18". The above conclusively proves that
Ron has his head way up his arse.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Allan Sheely" <NO@MAIL.HERE> wrote in message
news:hn4da05tp55moo57ksgj4ru792ttp845m8@4ax.com...
> p.s. Let's analyze Ron's recommended configuration in depth. Here is
> what we have, 2 HDD's and 2 optical drives on 2 IDE cables and a
> fanbus all being needed to be placed in the 5 1/2" slots. OK, first he
> says to me put the HDD's below or above the optical drives in the 5
> 1/2" slots. You can't put the HDD's below the optical drives if the
> HDD's are to be master.

Wrong.

>End connector of IDE cable is for master so
> putting the HDD's below the optical drive is physically impossible
> because of how the drives need to be placed on the cable so each HDD
> needs to go above each optical drive.

Huh?

> Then we have the probelm of
> heat, optical drives generate a fair amount of heat when in use so we
> don't want any HDD right next to an optical drive,

Under or over with a fan.

> that means an empty
> 5 1/2" slot btween each optical drive and HDD. Below is the
> configuration we need of the 5 1/2" slots to meet Ron's anal
> standards.

Clueless.

> Fanbus
> HDD
> open space
> Optical drive
> open space
> HDD
> open space
> Optical drive

Hire a professional to figure it out for you as it seems such is beyond you.

Note that in ATA two drive RAID they always say to put the two drives on
separate cables. I wonder why that is?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sat, 15 May 2004 22:32:05 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net>
wrote:


>Note that in ATA two drive RAID they always say to put the two drives on
>separate cables. I wonder why that is?
>

Remember, we are using a mb with only two IDE ports? Come on rotten
Ronny. Let's see your genius at work.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sat, 15 May 2004 22:32:05 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net>
wrote:


>>End connector of IDE cable is for master so
>> putting the HDD's below the optical drive is physically impossible
>> because of how the drives need to be placed on the cable so each HDD
>> needs to go above each optical drive.
>
>Huh?

Diagram of IDE cable.

|----- IDE Master (HDD)
|
|
|___ IDE Slave (Optical Drive)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|____ Connector to mb


Simple enough for your pea brain?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Slug <no@email.here> wrote in news:e4vu90dks2r5js4jjr5lk2jfs2cbq0a7fm@
4ax.com:

> On Sat, 8 May 2004 12:13:50 -0400, Toshi1873 <toshi1873@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Cable A: HDD + optical
>>Cable B: HDD + optical
>
> That would be a cabling nightmare. In fact it is practically
> impossible to do due to the physical placement of the drives in the
> case. HDD's usually go in the bottom of the case in 3 1/4" brackets
> and cdrom drives in the top of the case in 51/2" brackets. How are you
> going to cable all those drives using your configuration without
> moving the HDD's to the top of the case? Personally, I put my two
> HDD's on primary IDE as master and slave and then put my DVD and CDRW
> drives on the secondary IDE as master/slave. I expect if there is a
> perfromance hit, and I do emphasize "if", it is negligible. I have a
> copy of MaximumPC that recommends your way too. But IMO it is not a
> well thought out theory because of the complications I have pointed
> out.

I'm running my system in a similar manner to yours. 5.25" bays have one
dvdrw (master), one cdrw (slave) on the onboard secondary. Two IBM GXP22
hds on the onboard primary. They're in the 3.5" bays. The remaining four
3.5" bays are filled with Maxtor HDs on a promise Ultra133TX2 card.
Cooling isn't a problem with 2 intake fans, one in front of the drives, and
2 exhaust fans in addition to the power supply fans. It's an Antec sx1030
case. I have found that the newer drives seem to be both cooler and quieter
than older drives. The IBM 22GXPs were noticably cooler and quieter than
the older Seagate 7200rpm drives they replaced. Likewise, the newer Maxtor
drives are cooler and quieter than the IBM 22GXPs.

I've not noticed any problems running the two opticals sharing the
secondary IDE channel. At one time I was running two instances of EAC to
rip audio CDs from both drives at the same time. The peak and average read
speeds weren't much different from the speeds I observed while using one
drive at a time. So, it's fast enough for my uses. That's probably the
only time that I use both optical drives at once.

There might be some benefit to splitting up the HDs across two IDE channels
instead of sharing one. Again, I haven't seen a big performance hit for
my use. A person could run perfmon under nt/2k/xp/2003 to see if they do
have some disk activity that might justify splitting them across other
disks on separate channels. In my case, I've already split up other disk
intensive apps to other disks on another card.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sat, 15 May 2004 22:44:41 GMT, "Mr. Grinch" <grinch@hatespam.yucky>
wrote:


>I'm running my system in a similar manner to yours. 5.25" bays have one
>dvdrw (master), one cdrw (slave) on the onboard secondary. Two IBM GXP22
>hds on the onboard primary. They're in the 3.5" bays. The remaining four
>3.5" bays are filled with Maxtor HDs on a promise Ultra133TX2 card.
>Cooling isn't a problem with 2 intake fans, one in front of the drives, and
>2 exhaust fans in addition to the power supply fans. It's an Antec sx1030
>case. I have found that the newer drives seem to be both cooler and quieter
>than older drives. The IBM 22GXPs were noticably cooler and quieter than
>the older Seagate 7200rpm drives they replaced. Likewise, the newer Maxtor
>drives are cooler and quieter than the IBM 22GXPs.
>
>I've not noticed any problems running the two opticals sharing the
>secondary IDE channel. At one time I was running two instances of EAC to
>rip audio CDs from both drives at the same time. The peak and average read
>speeds weren't much different from the speeds I observed while using one
>drive at a time. So, it's fast enough for my uses. That's probably the
>only time that I use both optical drives at once.
>
>There might be some benefit to splitting up the HDs across two IDE channels
>instead of sharing one. Again, I haven't seen a big performance hit for
>my use. A person could run perfmon under nt/2k/xp/2003 to see if they do
>have some disk activity that might justify splitting them across other
>disks on separate channels. In my case, I've already split up other disk
>intensive apps to other disks on another card.

Sorry to drag you into this Mr. grinch. I agree with everything you
say except maybe putting HDD's next to each other due to heat. Read
Ronny's history in this thread to see why I made that post.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Mr. Grinch" <grinch@hatespam.yucky> wrote in message

-snip

> I've not noticed any problems running the two opticals sharing the
> secondary IDE channel.

That's the expected result. Two well behaved opticals on the same cable is
fine.

> At one time I was running two instances of EAC to
> rip audio CDs from both drives at the same time. The peak and average
read
> speeds weren't much different from the speeds I observed while using one
> drive at a time. So, it's fast enough for my uses. That's probably the
> only time that I use both optical drives at once.
>
> There might be some benefit to splitting up the HDs across two IDE
channels
> instead of sharing one.

Right.

> Again, I haven't seen a big performance hit for
> my use. A person could run perfmon under nt/2k/xp/2003 to see if they do
> have some disk activity that might justify splitting them across other
> disks on separate channels.

Two HDs on the same cable are fine IF they both aren't used simultaneously
with heavy activity.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Allan Sheely <NO@MAIL.HERE> wrote in
news:dpada0539uhah4ui3joemh1j3sc6ti0det@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 15 May 2004 22:44:41 GMT, "Mr. Grinch" <grinch@hatespam.yucky>
> wrote:
> Sorry to drag you into this Mr. grinch. I agree with everything you
> say except maybe putting HDD's next to each other due to heat. Read
> Ronny's history in this thread to see why I made that post.

I think there was a suggestion that getting the "right" case could
accomodate splitting up the drives (optical and hd) so that the HDs would not
get too hot, while still maintaining proper cable length. I'm just offering
another option, that the "right" case can have proper cooling / spacing for
the drives such that mounting the HD's beside each other is not a problem.
I'm happy with 4x80mm panaflow fans in the antec sx1030 (two intake, two
exhaust). It's not built to the same standards as say a Compaq F1 drive
array chassis but it's good enough for my use. Probably overkill for the
original poster's needs but who know's what his case is like.

Also, it seems many people insist on 7200rpm drives as a "must have". Sure,
they are faster for some things. For many uses, the latest 5400 rpm drives
perform adequately (backups, archives). I've found my 5400 rpm Maxtor drives
(a 160 and a 300) have quite good sustained sequential transfer rates. The
5400 rpm drives worth a look if for some reason cooling or noise are
concerns.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 16 May 2004 08:37:11 GMT, "Mr. Grinch" <grinch@hatespam.yucky>
wrote:


>I think there was a suggestion that getting the "right" case could
>accomodate splitting up the drives (optical and hd) so that the HDs would not
>get too hot, while still maintaining proper cable length. I'm just offering
>another option, that the "right" case can have proper cooling / spacing for
>the drives such that mounting the HD's beside each other is not a problem.
>I'm happy with 4x80mm panaflow fans in the antec sx1030 (two intake, two
>exhaust). It's not built to the same standards as say a Compaq F1 drive
>array chassis but it's good enough for my use. Probably overkill for the
>original poster's needs but who know's what his case is like.
>
>Also, it seems many people insist on 7200rpm drives as a "must have". Sure,
>they are faster for some things. For many uses, the latest 5400 rpm drives
>perform adequately (backups, archives). I've found my 5400 rpm Maxtor drives
>(a 160 and a 300) have quite good sustained sequential transfer rates. The
>5400 rpm drives worth a look if for some reason cooling or noise are
>concerns.

You're not paying attention. My current case is pretty much exactly
the same as yours! There is nothing wrong with my case or
configuration of drives. I was just showing up rotten Ronny's moment
of brilliance as the anal twattery it really is.

 

[Bob]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 16 May 2004 12:16:18 -0700, Allan Sheely <NO@MAIL.HERE> wrote:

>rotten Ronny's moment
>of brilliance as the anal twattery it really is.

Troll


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in one pretty and well-preserved piece.
One should rather skid in broadside, thoroughly used up,
totally worn out, loudly proclaiming "WOW! WHAT A RIDE!"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40a822a2.354409@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 12:16:18 -0700, Allan Sheely <NO@MAIL.HERE> wrote:
>
> >rotten Ronny's moment
> >of brilliance as the anal twattery it really is.
>
> Troll
>
A troll! Are you saying there are trolls in comp.*?

Troll Spotting 101: Is he Ronny, Allan, or Boob?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net> wrote:

>Two HDs on the same cable are fine IF they both aren't used simultaneously
>with heavy activity.

And if they're not IBM DeathStars. 8)