Help with options for data back-up Raid SCSI?? Just some i..

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

Why are you saying the SCSI harddrives are triple the cost??

Seems like I can get one for 1/2 the price.
It will be smaller, but that isn't the concern.

I would rather have 2 smaller drives then one large one.

I think my existing SCSI drives would be faster then the Raptor.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

I specified my drive model already...
Its the Fujitsu
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

Fujitsu MAM3367MC
Size: 36.7 GB Internal Drive
Speed: 15000 rpm
Access Time: 3.5 ms
Interface: Ultra160 SCSI
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

Yes, you can get previous model SCSI drives for less than Raptors.

In both cases the 10K drives have 36GB platters, and 15K have 18GB platters. New SCSI models are
twice the capacity, and 40% faster STR.

You can easily look up your drives and the Raptor at storagereview.com, and settle the matter.

<gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1119835432.308704.262080@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Why are you saying the SCSI harddrives are triple the cost??
>
> Seems like I can get one for 1/2 the price.
> It will be smaller, but that isn't the concern.
>
> I would rather have 2 smaller drives then one large one.
>
> I think my existing SCSI drives would be faster then the Raptor.
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119816947.377350.30160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I also have a Quantum brand 10k SCSI 160 drive.


Repeated claims not showing model number are to be ignored. You are
sounding more like a SCSI marketing droid on each post.

> I downloaded and ran HD tach.
> The quantum was faster then the Fujitsu which were both faster then the
> data given for the raptor.


HDTach doesn't show actual app/OS performance. Triple cost SCSI HDs don't
compete price-performance wise with ATA HDs in single user workstation
usage.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

"Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119817026.947315.273010@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Do you have any idea of a decent price for the Raptor?

$182 www.mwave.com

> I see there are 2 different sizes, is there a speed difference in the
> size?

Yes, the 74GB is the one to get and is faster.

> I will buy a raptor, and another decent 160 drive.... this will end the
> debate.

Not with you as the reporter. All this has altready been done. There are a
number of sites on the web who have run all the benchmarks on these issues
and most all ATA and SCSI HDs.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

<gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119835432.308704.262080@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Why are you saying the SCSI harddrives are triple the cost??


Because in general the latest top SCSI HDs cost triple the latest top ATA
HDs.

> Seems like I can get one for 1/2 the price.


NO, not a good one except at your midnight auto supply company.

> It will be smaller, but that isn't the concern.


Huh?

> I would rather have 2 smaller drives then one large one.


Check the price-performance.

> I think my existing SCSI drives would be faster then the Raptor.


When you make such a claim without specifying your drive model then you
you're simply trolling.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

<gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119837999.494975.313210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Fujitsu MAM3367MC
> Size: 36.7 GB Internal Drive
> Speed: 15000 rpm
> Access Time: 3.5 ms
> Interface: Ultra160 SCSI

The MAM3367 is significantly slower in most all the benchmarks than the 74GB
Raptor in single user workstation usage.

A Maxtor Atlas 15K II and the Cheetah 15K.4 are the hot SCSI drives. Both
are faster than the Raptor in single user workstation usage but not that
much faster. They cost about $440 & $575 for the 73GB version. The 74GB
Raptor is about $190.

There's no point in expensive SCSI HDs on a single user workstation.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

In article <d9ijqq02e9g@enews4.newsguy.com>, Eric Gisin
<ericgisin@hotmail.com> writes

>Just like the deathstar (75GXP) myth, right Ron?
>Remember the "IBM slime cult" that was responsible for that mth?

IBM have finally 'fessed up and admitted responsibility:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24205

What say you about that, Ron?
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

> Eric Gisin wrote:
>>
>>Just like the deathstar (75GXP) myth, right Ron?
>>Remember the "IBM slime cult" that was responsible for that mth?
>
>IBM have finally 'fessed up and admitted responsibility:
>
>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24205
>
>What say you about that, Ron?

The wackos get even more desperate.
If he bothers to supply the URL then note the straws that they're
grasping at.

Ignore the trolling cretin.

The only possible logical conclusion is that the vast majority of
reports of multiple failures are bogus. One arrives at that
conclusion by simple deduction and statistics.

The Deskstar 60 GXP is the best EIDE HD around as was the 75GXP before
it. Any attempt to slime the best EIDE HD around or its predecessor
is a disservice to the entire HD user community. There are few
credible reports of 75GXP failures and many blatantly bogus ones.

There are no reliability issues with any recent IBM drive.

For the vast majority the 75GXP is fast and reliable.

Nothing is wrong as generally they work just fine. There are very
small numbers of reliable reports of 75GXP problems.

They just keep makin the best drives around.

Did your mamma's dog also have a bad batch of 75GXPs?

There is no well known and reputable website nor news source that
confirms any kind of problem with IBM Deskstar HDs. It's just a few
web wackos making bogus claims.

And if anyone believes this then I got a bridge for sale cheap over
the East River.

Nope there's nothin there but just wacko slime.

Most everyone reports no problems at all and they are fast.

Your anti-IBM slime campaign has now been widely discredited.

That's flat false. Only the anit-IBM slimers so claim.

Nope, there is a small cult of anti-IBM slimers running amok.

The 75GXP is a great drive and very reliable.

There are generally no problems with the Deskstar 75GXP. There are a
few attempting a smear campaign.

Ignore the wacko stalker and cult members.

Said by a card carrying member of the anti-IBM slime campaign.

Any given drive may fail in the field. In general the Deskstar 75GXP
works very well and is quiet and reliable.

The 75GXP and now 60GXP are reliable and fast drives and there is NO
reputable information suggesting otherwise.

Simply a slime attempt.

Compared to the number shipped there are in fact very FEW reports of
failures.

There has been an ongoing slime attempt for several months now
emanating from a storage site's forum. First the claims were that the
Deskstar 75GXP had high failure rates and now that they couldn't make
that bogus claim stick they've come up with this latest batch of slime
against the 75GXP. It all comes from that weak storage site. It's
all flat false.

The burden of proof is on you and the other slimers.

Nice try at misdirection by an incompetent.

The anti-IBM slime wackos are getting shrill and desperate as it
steadily becomes apparent that Deskstar 75GXPs don't NOT tend to fail
and the wackos are being publicly eviscerated and humiliated.
Fortunately they all line up on a daily basis for all to see who and
what they are.

There no smoke but just wacko gibber.

That's just an anti-IBM slime campaign. The 75GXP including the 45GB
is a good drive and many many use it with great success.

Your shrillness grows as your position becomes insupportable.

Wacko. Anyone involved in a HD popularity poll is simply wacko.

There are no significant problems with IBM HDs as has been clearly
demonstrated.

Another post by the same wacko slimers.

IBM HDs are very reliable and there are few problems.

Clueless. What if the 44% is the same six guys making multiple posts
which is obviously the case with the slimer who originated from that
website in the beginning..

All bogus claims. The 75GXP works fine.

The wackos seem to flock together.

Just a few wackos making wild and unsubstantiated claims.

A typical made up report by the same wackos with no USENET history..

And like other members of the slime cult, you'd like to make the
number of IBM failures look much larger than it is. Get a life.

More desperate grasping at straws when nailed. Such desperation is
always accompanied by snipping away the thread which one got nailed
by.

IBM HDs work just fine. There is no well known & reputable website nor
news source that sugests otherwise. There is just a few wacko slimers
trying to suggest that there are major problems with IBM HDs. Such is
utterly bogus. They hate the fact that I've exposed their slime and
so they stalk me at every opportunity.

They simply just aren't here if we subtract your and a few other
wackos' repetitive posts. Better luck next time.

Right, only the multi failures guys post here repeatedly. Did your
mama's dog have one go bad too?

Clueless. Supply one shred of credible evidence to support that.

This well known stalker and troll has no clue.

It'll be fine and have few problems just like the 75GXP.

The ranting lunatics line up.

Pure nonsense. The slimers claim that these things are failing by the
tuckload. It is clearly obvious to everyone that they are NOT failing
in any significant quantities. The slime campaign is now debunked and
the wackos went off to Jonestown and did a cult poll in frustration.

All possible and could even explain a few multidrive failure reports.
BUT othing supports an kind of mass failures that the wackos are
claiming. Basically the 75GXP and 60GXP are fast and reliable HDs and
there isn't the slightest evidence to suggest otherwise.

However in this case there is wide spread verification that the 75GXP
is very reliable and works just fine.

HUH? There has been NO high failure rate in the last few months.
There have been a number of bogus reports of failures.

Again I see that the group of lunatic ranters has been coalesced in
one place.

Now we are getting the desperate ninnies distilled into one subthread.

Ignore this recidivist wacko stalker.

Clueless gibber.

Clueless nonsense. IBM HDs work just fine and are very reliable.

Make sure that you don't firget to post this twice a week for the next
month or two you slimer.

The clueless ninnies lineup up for us. Not one can provide any
reference to any well known reputable website nor news source
suggesting any problem with IBM HDs. The wackos have been well
identified now.

Utter nonsense. The 75GXP is very relaible and a few wackos have a
posting history of such anti-IBM slime like you.

The wackos stalkers never have any technical contribution and always
revert to utterly bogus personal attacks.

As usual. all stalking and no content from this wacko.

Clueless....obviously you are a slimer.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

Rod Reaugh wrote:

>Gisin lunatic rantings always the same as so many have noticed..

Why are so afraid to admit that you were wrong, Ronnie?
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

In article <qun2c1dba8b1h9ht4d7a46nusq3nqpsjal@4ax.com>, chrisv
<chrisv@nospam.invalid> writes

[snip lovely collection of Ron-isms]

I note he's suddenly gone very quiet. :)
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

In article <rJ3ve.355805$cg1.225893@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes

>A triple cost late model 15kRPM SCSI HD is a little faster

Wriggle, wriggle. It's actually /much/ faster.

> BUT the much less
>expensive dual drive ATA RAID 0 is faster than any single drive 15K RPM
>solution.

And halves the reliability to boot.

Same old Retard Ronnie bullshit.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

In message <dDUEUiK5+XwCFwBZ@jasper.org.uk>, Mike Tomlinson
<mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> writes
>In article <rJ3ve.355805$cg1.225893@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
>>A triple cost late model 15kRPM SCSI HD is a little faster
>
>Wriggle, wriggle. It's actually /much/ faster.
>
>> BUT the much less
>>expensive dual drive ATA RAID 0 is faster than any single drive 15K RPM
>>solution.
>
>And halves the reliability to boot.
>
>Same old Retard Ronnie bullshit.
>
What is "RAID 0" - is this just the same as "Just a Box Of Disks"?

--
Jeremy Boden
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

In article <BTeKu8AWfbwCFwj5@jboden.demon.co.uk>, Jeremy Boden
<jeremy@jboden.demon.co.uk> writes

>What is "RAID 0" - is this just the same as "Just a Box Of Disks"?

Not quite. It refers to striping one or more disks together to form one
larger logical disk. Performance is usually good, but the downside is
that there's no fault tolerance at all - if one disk fails, all data on
the array is lost.

JBOD (just a bunch of disks) means just that. Each disk is its own
logical disk and has its own filesystem.

RAID 0 is an oxymoron really, as there's no redundancy.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

"Mike Tomlinson" <mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> wrote in message news:2ugefPMr+bwCFwHI@jasper.org.uk
> In article <BTeKu8AWfbwCFwj5@jboden.demon.co.uk>, Jeremy Boden <jeremy@jboden.demon.co.uk> writes
>
> > What is "RAID 0" - is this just the same as "Just a Box Of Disks"?
>
> Not quite. It refers to striping one or more disks together to form one
> larger logical disk. Performance is usually good, but the downside is
> that there's no fault tolerance at all - if one disk fails, all data on
> the array is lost.
>
> JBOD (just a bunch of disks) means just that.

Yes, ...

> Each disk is its own logical disk and has its own filesystem.

.... but not that.

It's one new virtual physical disk consisting of concatenated physical disks.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Redundant_array_of_independent_disks#Concatenation_.28JBOD.29
You may also know it as 'spanning'.

>
> RAID 0 is an oxymoron really, as there's no redundancy.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

In article <42c1db9f$1$86818$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> writes

>It's one new virtual physical disk consisting of concatenated physical disks.
>http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Redundant_array_of_independent_disks#Concatenat
>ion_.28JBOD.29
>You may also know it as 'spanning'.

Thanks for the correction.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

"Mike Tomlinson" <mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> wrote in message
news:dDUEUiK5+XwCFwBZ@jasper.org.uk...
> In article <rJ3ve.355805$cg1.225893@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
> >A triple cost late model 15kRPM SCSI HD is a little faster
>
> Wriggle, wriggle. It's actually /much/ faster.


Clueless. Cite a reference in single user workstation usage.

> > BUT the much less
> >expensive dual drive ATA RAID 0 is faster than any single drive 15K
RPM
> >solution.
>
> And halves the reliability to boot.

Yep but then price performance is the issue and good backups cover that.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

"Jeremy Boden" <jeremy@jboden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BTeKu8AWfbwCFwj5@jboden.demon.co.uk...
> In message <dDUEUiK5+XwCFwBZ@jasper.org.uk>, Mike Tomlinson
> <mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> writes
> >In article <rJ3ve.355805$cg1.225893@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> >Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes
> >
> >>A triple cost late model 15kRPM SCSI HD is a little faster
> >
> >Wriggle, wriggle. It's actually /much/ faster.
> >
> >> BUT the much less
> >>expensive dual drive ATA RAID 0 is faster than any single drive 15K
RPM
> >>solution.
> >
> >And halves the reliability to boot.
> >
> >Same old Retard Ronnie bullshit.
> >
> What is "RAID 0" - is this just the same as "Just a Box Of Disks"?

Two drives run in tandem where half the data is on each drive and that
doubles the sustained transfer rate and has other performance benefits and a
few performance reductions.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

In article <txrwe.369070$cg1.197328@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes

>Clueless.

That's rich coming from "Mr Deskstar 75GXP Slime Cult" himself.

> Cite a reference in single user workstation usage.

You made the original claim. You back it up with a citation.

>Yep but then price performance is the issue and good backups cover that.

Wriggle, wriggle.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:Ixrwe.369071$cg1.353643@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "Jeremy Boden" <jeremy@jboden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:BTeKu8AWfbwCFwj5@jboden.demon.co.uk...
> > In message dDUEUiK5+XwCFwBZ@jasper.org.uk>, Mike Tomlinson <mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> writes
> > > In article rJ3ve.355805$cg1.225893@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes
> > >
> > > > A triple cost late model 15kRPM SCSI HD is a little faster
> > >
> > > Wriggle, wriggle. It's actually /much/ faster.
> > >
> > > > BUT the much less expensive dual drive ATA RAID 0 is faster
> > > > than any single drive 15K RPM solution.
> > >
> > > And halves the reliability to boot.
> > >
> > > Same old Retard Ronnie bullshit.
> > >
> > What is "RAID 0" - is this just the same as "Just a Box Of Disks"?
>
> Two drives

Clueless. Multiple (x) drives.

> run in tandem

> where half the data

1/x of the data

> is on each drive and that

> doubles

times x

> the sustained transfer rate

> and has other performance benefits

No, that's it.

> and a few performance reductions.

On small files.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:42c259fa$0$76899$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Ixrwe.369071$cg1.353643@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> > "Jeremy Boden" <jeremy@jboden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BTeKu8AWfbwCFwj5@jboden.demon.co.uk...
> > > In message dDUEUiK5+XwCFwBZ@jasper.org.uk>, Mike Tomlinson
<mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> writes
> > > > In article
rJ3ve.355805$cg1.225893@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Ron Reaugh
<ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes
> > > >
> > > > > A triple cost late model 15kRPM SCSI HD is a little faster
> > > >
> > > > Wriggle, wriggle. It's actually /much/ faster.
> > > >
> > > > > BUT the much less expensive dual drive ATA RAID 0 is faster
> > > > > than any single drive 15K RPM solution.
> > > >
> > > > And halves the reliability to boot.
> > > >
> > > > Same old Retard Ronnie bullshit.
> > > >
> > > What is "RAID 0" - is this just the same as "Just a Box Of Disks"?
> >
> > Two drives
>
> Clueless. Multiple (x) drives.
>
> > run in tandem
>
> > where half the data
>
> 1/x of the data
>
> > is on each drive and that
>
> > doubles
>
> times x
>
> > the sustained transfer rate
>
> > and has other performance benefits
>
> No, that's it.


Wacko, small record random I/O throughput where the record size is much
smaller than the stripe unit size is doubled for the two drives I was
describing. Can ya figure the non-improvement for 3 drives?

> > and a few performance reductions.
>
> On small files.

Nope, for that the multithreaded throuphput may be significantly improved.
The performance loss is that the average access time is increased when the
record spans stripe units. I know this in gettin a lil complex for ya but
one can always have hope.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

Regardless of the performance and price garbage...

I picked up a SCSI RAID card and 4 10k 36 gig harddrives..

I will be starting a new thread for the best way to set these up.

Thanks for all the great comments.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

I paid a bit more then the price of one Raptor drive and SATA card
would have cost me.

Less then the cost of 2 Raptor drives and SATA card
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

Assuming the price is the same..

Wouldn't 2 36gig drives be faster then 1 single 73gig drive?
And 3 drives even better.

The fact of having the OS - Programs - Data and Swap file on separate
physical drives.
Assuming the same model types.

If you had a 36 gig Raptor drive that was as fast as the 73gig model.
Wouldn't 2 36 gig drives be faster then 2 single 73gig model?

If speed were in relation to application performance.