oi pixie... where u?

[killall]

where is the pixie dust.... where are the new hugely increased capicity hard drives... no upgrades in size for a fair bit of time now...

if in doubt blame microsoft...

 

[Stick_e_Mouse]

What? 100GB isn't enough for you??

<font color=blue>Your mouse moved. WINDOWS NT must restart for changes to take affect. Restart Now?[OK]</font color=blue>

 

[killall]

no it isnt i want 4 256gb drives arranged in raid 0!!! i want a 1tb drive!!! yeh mmm... terra...

if in doubt blame microsoft...

 

[FatBurger]

Why do you have an obsession with the main character from Final Fantasy 3?



<font color=blue>Quarter pounder inside</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Change the Sig of the Week!!!</font color=red>

 

[Stick_e_Mouse]

If you want, I'll sell you my Zettabyte Hard Drive arranged in Ultra-Super-Mega Raid 2+3 for cheap.

<font color=blue>Your mouse moved. WINDOWS NT must restart for changes to take affect. Restart Now?[OK]</font color=blue>

 

[FatBurger]

Raid 2+3? That's not even possible, sorry



<font color=blue>Quarter pounder inside</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Change the Sig of the Week!!!</font color=red>

 

[Stick_e_Mouse]

Wha-what??!!!
You mean to tell me you never heard of the Ultra-Super-Mega Raid 2+3 coming out together with nForce?? Where have you been, man? =)

<font color=blue>Your mouse moved. WINDOWS NT must restart for changes to take affect. Restart Now?[OK]</font color=blue>

 

[FatBurger]

I know you're joking, but just for the heck of it...

RAID LEVEL 2
Bits (rather than bytes or groups of bytes) are interleaved across multiple disks. The Connection Machine used this technique, but this is a rare method.

RAID LEVEL 3
Data is striped across three or more drives. Used to achieve the higest data transfer, because all drives operate in parallel. Parity bits are stored on separate, dedicated drives.

And no, RAID 2+3 doesn't make RAID 5

So let's see...It would stripe individual bits over 3 or more drives, with parity bits stored on separate drives. I guess it is theoretically possible, but you obviously can't buy a controller that would do that.



<font color=blue>Quarter pounder inside</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Change the Sig of the Week!!!</font color=red>

 

[Stick_e_Mouse]

=)

<font color=blue>Your mouse moved. WINDOWS NT must restart for changes to take affect. Restart Now?[OK]</font color=blue>

 

[killall]

i just do, ok!? you have a problem with that?!

if in doubt blame microsoft...

 

[killall]

hes just behind on times... but i want my pixie! what about super-duper-mega-whammy-ultra-mega raid? with the promise he666ll controller... singnifying that the worlds about to end? ive gotta get me one of those... raid 332+334 no it does not equal raid 666, moo

if in doubt blame microsoft...

 

[FatBurger]

lol

This thread deteriorated quickly



<font color=blue>Quarter pounder inside</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Change the Sig of the Week!!!</font color=red>

 

[Stick_e_Mouse]

Hey, Ifound your answer while reading the latest issue of "Maximum PC". The article is on page 14, titled "IDE Barrier Stops PCs at 137GB":

"When hard drives exceeds 137GB early next year, the upgrade won't be as easy as dropping in a drive. Because of a hardware and software limitation, almost every PC sold today will be unable to address drives beyond the 137GB IDE limit.

The barrier has to do with the way the IDE interface addresses data locations on a harddisk. THe IDE interface represents data addresses with a 28-bit number, which tells your PC the specific cylinder, head, and sector where it can find what its looking for. Using 28 bits, your hard drive can address up to 268,431,360 data sectors. Since each sector contains 512 bytes, IDE can store a grand total of 137.4 GB of data before they run out of addresses.

Fortunately, leading harddrive makers are hashing out an upgraded ATA specification that will allow computers to handle the extra space.

The ATA-6 specification will move the IDE interface to 48-bit addresses, which extends the limit of harddrive capacities by more than a million-fold to 144 petabytes. Machines running 32-bit OSes will continue to be stuck at 2.1 terabytes.

The new ATA spec will require an updated BIOS and Windows driver upgrade to make the PC work with a large drive. Microsoft, however, only intends to offer the large IDE driver in its upcoming Windows XP."

hmmmm.....so it looks like you'll have to wait till the new ATA interface comes out and also upgrade to WinXP in order to use a single drive larger than 137GB.



<font color=blue>Your mouse moved. WINDOWS NT must restart for changes to take affect. Restart Now?[OK]</font color=blue><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Stick_e_Mouse on 08/16/01 02:29 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[killall]

i believe youll find that raid and scsi bypass this limit...

if in doubt blame microsoft...

 

[killall]

i know... dont you just love corruption?

if in doubt blame microsoft...

 

[Stick_e_Mouse]

Yeah I know.
But I doubt that storage companies will make mainstream harddrive specifically just for RAID and SCSI. (Sort of like how things are now, there are indeed larger capacity SCSI drives, but not everyone can afford them. So companies turn to the good 'ol IDE interface. It would be cheaper, even with the upcoming 'new' ATA interface, to implement into motherboards, hence, more mainstream than RAID and SCSI.)

<font color=blue>Your mouse moved. WINDOWS NT must restart for changes to take affect. Restart Now?[OK]</font color=blue>

 

[killall]

raid is becoming more and more common which is good... people buy 180 gig scsi drives... (though they pay quite a bit for them) and bios updates/software at the start of drives would make larger drives usable... just like the larger drives still work on older boxes though they shouldnt...

if in doubt blame microsoft...