Good RAID for New Desktop Machine?
in [Storage]
|
From: Folkert Rienstra on 11 Apr 2008 16:59 Maxim S. Shatskih wrote in news:ftmlfs$2ce$1(a)news.mtu.ru > > > I run the Adaptec SCSI card > > > > > (160MB/s, the one with Windows driver "adpu160m") > > > > That narrows it down quite a bit, doesn't it. > > Almost as good as naming the model number. > > Adaptec 29160, > PCI\VEN_9005&DEV_0080&SUBSYS_E2A09005&REV_02 Ahh, there you go, that's the HP/Compaq OEM-ed one. Obviously that's the one to go for.
From: Lon on 11 Apr 2008 22:08 Rod Speed wrote: > nik Simpson <nik_s(a)knology.net> wrote >> Bob Willard wrote > >>> With RAID-1 (mirroring) you still should do regular backups. RAID-1 >>> only protects against failure of a HD, and supplies no protection against failures of any other piece of hardware, or >>> glitches due to software or environment or fumble-fingers. IMHO, since the HD is one of the most reliable pieces of >>> a PC, RAID-1 has very little value for a home. > >> Hmm, if I look at all the hardware failures I've in the last 15 or so years, hard disks are probably the least >> reliable part of my desktops. I can't recall a CPU, memory, graphics card or motherboard failure in that time, maybe >> I'm just lucky (or unlucky depending on how you look at it.) > > Sure, but plenty get that with hard drives too. > > With an oddball hiccup in the measured reliability of all components in systems, working for multiple vendors, I gotta go with hard drives. This is SMD, IDE, EIDE, SCSI, FC, SATA. Generally anything with moving parts will be less reliable. Other highlights are parts where the user can get at them, plug them into something stupid, plug something stupid into them, or pour various liquids on them. Even way back when memory errors occurred, measured over an entire install base, the memory was not that much different in reliability than the chips. A few issues with UV EPROMS, but those are in the antique shop anyway.
From: Lon on 11 Apr 2008 22:11 Maxim S. Shatskih wrote: >> I can't speak for their RAID cards, but the SCSI card in my old desktop >> was flaky from day one. After numerous tech support equiries, driver & >> firmware updates, it still bluescreens my computer occasionally. >> >> I will never buy another Adaptec product. > > I run the Adaptec SCSI card (160MB/s, the one with Windows driver "adpu160m") > for 8 years or so. No issues. > I've had pretty good luck with the old Adaptex SCSI cards...the ones with the MIPS chips in them. Measured across a pretty wide sample of machines. Not familiar with their RAID Adapters, as in dunno if they are Adaptec designs or came from Eurologic. The 4 channel Mylex is decent, but you need a good fast array to notice.
From: Rod Speed on 12 Apr 2008 00:55 Lon <lon.stowell(a)comcast.net> wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> nik Simpson <nik_s(a)knology.net> wrote >>> Bob Willard wrote >>>> With RAID-1 (mirroring) you still should do regular backups. RAID-1 only protects against failure of a HD, and >>>> supplies no protection >>>> against failures of any other piece of hardware, or glitches due >>>> to software or environment or fumble-fingers. IMHO, since the HD >>>> is one of the most reliable pieces of a PC, RAID-1 has very >>>> little value for a home. >>> Hmm, if I look at all the hardware failures I've in the last 15 or >>> so years, hard disks are probably the least reliable part of my >>> desktops. I can't recall a CPU, memory, graphics card or >>> motherboard failure in that time, maybe I'm just lucky (or unlucky >>> depending on how you look at it.) >> Sure, but plenty get that with hard drives too. > With an oddball hiccup in the measured reliability of all components > in systems, working for multiple vendors, I gotta go with hard drives. > This is SMD, IDE, EIDE, SCSI, FC, SATA. I include MFM, RLL, EDSI etc etc etc too. > Generally anything with moving parts will be less reliable. Its much more complicated than that. > Other highlights are parts where the user can get at them, plug them into something stupid, plug something stupid into > them, or pour various liquids on them. And stuff that has a rather hard life like mouse cords etc. > Even way back when memory errors occurred, measured over an entire > install base, the memory was not that much different in reliability than the chips. Yes, but it aint just chips that matter, most obviously with the problem with electros. > A few issues with UV EPROMS, but those are in the antique shop anyway. Doesnt alter that fact that plenty havent had a hard drive failure and have had other stuff fail.
From: Maxim S. Shatskih on 12 Apr 2008 01:13
> Doesnt alter that fact that plenty havent had a hard drive failure and have had >other stuff fail. Fans are also unreliable. -- Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP StorageCraft Corporation maxim(a)storagecraft.com http://www.storagecraft.com |