WD's 3TB Internal HDD Comes with PCI-e Card

[Thesmj]

My motherboard supports (and currently uses) AHCI, and its an old ABIT IP35-Pro. Is it AHCI support that resolves the 2.1 TB restriction on the hardware side, or do we really need a newfangled BIOS-replacement to use these new drives?

 

[SteelCity1981]

[citation][nom]thirtydot[/nom]This is not how probability works.[/citation]

I dunno, I guess i'll find out when i try to install a 3tb hard drive into my laptop one day and enable the EFI on it.

 

[SteelCity1981]

[citation][nom]techguy378[/nom]It probably relies on a BIOS compatibility module to boot Windows. The only difference between my PC and an Intel Mac is that the PC uses FAT for the EFI system partition and the Mac uses a read only HFS partition for the EFI system partition.Your Asus laptop on the other hand likely only supports an MBR partition table, hardly a true EFI implementation.[/citation]


I don't know the true setup it has in it I just glanced at it the other day All i know is it had an EFI boot option in the Bios. I guess i'll find out when i try to install a 3TB hard drive one day.

 

[techguy378]

[citation][nom]Thesmj[/nom]My motherboard supports (and currently uses) AHCI, and its an old ABIT IP35-Pro. Is it AHCI support that resolves the 2.1 TB restriction on the hardware side, or do we really need a newfangled BIOS-replacement to use these new drives?[/citation]
It's not possible to use hard drives greater than 2.1TB with a BIOS. You have to have EFI. No amount of programming can ever make a BIOS recognize a hard drive greater than 2.1TB. It's not possible.

 

[carl0ski]

[citation][nom]70camaross396[/nom]It not capacity that is the issue, it is reliability. I have had very good luck with WD drives. I have only had 1 failure in 10 years of using them. even then it was a 20 GB drive, I lost every thing i had at the time. that is when i leared about RAID 0/1/5/10. I prefer raid 5 or raid 1. for home use raid 1 is fine. all it costs is a motherboard that supports Raid and 2 identical drive. (technically the drives dont have to be identical. the raid volume will only be as large as the smallest drive) I would put 2 3TB Drive in a Raid 1 and call it good. In a busniess I would use Raid 5 or Raid 6 (raid 6 is like raid 5 except with double parity so it can tolerate 2 drives failing at once). Raid 5/6 have improved read/write speed over raid1, but that is really more for servers than performance desktops. even though some MB now support raid 5. I currently have 2 1tb WD black edition in raid 1. they have never given me a minutes problem.[/citation]
sorry not 100$ accurate

We use RAID 5 in business because Storage was extremely expensive in the past
Raid 1 4 X 3TB drives = 6TB usable Storage or 50%
Raid 1 4 X 3TB drives = 9TB usable Storage or 66.6%

making raid 5 cheaper since less wasted disk capacity.


write times on Parity based raid is slower than Raid 1 or non raid (single Disk)



Due to the constant queue of the CPU or processor on the hardware raid controller to perform the generation of a parity.

Reading on Raid 5 is close to or equal to a Raid 0 or sum of two individual drives.

Read rates of Raid 1 in certain circumstances can be quicker (concurrent reads) then both 5 and 0, if there are two files being read at the same time, the controller can send one request to each disk without the latency of seeking between both files on 5 or 0.

 

[jaygee02]

[citation][nom]lejay[/nom]Well, it's not going to be 3TB of really, really important text documents, is it? 99% porn and you know it.[/citation]
Way to generalise. Not everyone is as lonely as you