OK, I agree about the SCSI-RAID option (our server has a RAID-5 setup) but given the enormous cost difference between SCSI and ATA, and converging performance, it would make sense to use 4 chunky ATA disks in a RAID 0/1 configuration for speed and security. Might be a bit noisy with all those disks spinning, though.
GrahamOB ----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Vick, Europa Technologies Ltd." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "MapInfo-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "GrahamOB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 13 September 2002 00:56 Subject: RE: MI-L Hardware Specs > > Hello Graham, > > ... but you can of course RAID0 SCSI disks too so that's not really a > factor. If cost is a concern, by all means consider ATA disks, but since the > machine spec' given by Michael's original post seems uncompromising, you > might as well have the best of everything! > > BTW, a good friend of mind swore by RAID0 ATA disks and was giving me a demo > of their speed when the controller flashed up an error message. The end > result was that he lost everything on his disks because a damaged stripe > took out all data... at least when a un-RAIDed disk fails in a localised > area, there's a chance to get most of the data back. Don't get me wrong, > RAID0 has it's place but you've really got to know what it's doing and what > the risks are. > > Regards, > Warren Vick > Europa Technologies Ltd. > http://www.europa-tech.com > > > Slaving away in London UK > Me too... more coffee? > > -----Original Message----- > From: GrahamOB [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 12:14 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: MI-L Hardware Specs > > > OK, here's my tuppence-worth (about 3 cents, so you're getting good value) > > Don't bother with SCSI. For a cost-effective and, above all, fast solution, > use a pair of the biggest, fastest ATA disks you can find with a RAID > controller, configured as RAID-0. This stripes the data across the pair of > disks, effectively doubling the transfer rate (less a little overhead). I > use a set-up like that with a couple of 40GB drives, and it handles even > pretty big raster files very fast. > > BTW, has anyone noticed what a good games machine this would make? Imagine > Half-Life or Unreal Tournament on that - yummy! > > GrahamOB > Slaving away in London UK > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Warren Vick, Europa Technologies Ltd." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: 12 September 2002 23:32 > Subject: RE: MI-L Hardware Specs > > > > > > Hello, > > > > Why would all three disks be working at the same time? Once the OS is > > loaded, it may only occasionally load extra components. Ditto for > > applications. There used to be a case for putting the swap file on a drive > > of it's own but with 1GB of memory, it's unlikely one will see any page > > swaps unless the user runs half a dozen apps at the same time. > > > > My recommendation is to upgrade to a good SCSI disk controller and > Ultra-160 > > drives. In my experience, disk speed is as important as the processor with > > memory only a problem if you don' t have enough. Lots of excess memory is > > not going to make the machine faster. > > > > Regards, > > Warren Vick > > Europa Technologies Ltd. > > http://www.europa-tech.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 10:49 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: MI-L Hardware Specs > > > > > > As long as you are building a machine, I would suggest that you use three > > separate hard drives. put the OS on one, the programs on the second, and > > the > > data on the third. the first two can be 5 to 10 gig in size (you use the > > spare space for temp storage and print spooling). The third should be > large. > > this is more efficient and will speed up data transfer (instead of having > > the > > head of one HD doing all the work, you have three HD's working > > independently). You should also have a back up (removable?) hard drive > (or > > two) for long term data storage (just in case your main storage drive goes > > bad - it is hell when that happens). > > > > you did not specify your bus speed/memory speed. there are new memory > chips > > (very expensive) that work at 5 to 10 times the speed (data transfer) of > the > > SDRAM > > > > s. figuers > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > List hosting provided by Directions Magazine | www.directionsmag.com | > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Message number: 3014 > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > List hosting provided by Directions Magazine | www.directionsmag.com | > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Message number: 3015 > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > List hosting provided by Directions Magazine | www.directionsmag.com | > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Message number: 3016 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > List hosting provided by Directions Magazine | www.directionsmag.com | > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Message number: 3017 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- List hosting provided by Directions Magazine | www.directionsmag.com | To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message number: 3018
