• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

1.8 terabytes of storage...

Originally posted by: BoberFett
A 17 drive IDE array? I give a month before there's a drive failure.
Click to expand...

Ditto. Wait until his GF knocks the drive rack over reaching for her things.
 
Crap, that's a lot of storage. Hope he's got them in RAID 5, cause if not, he'll be due for an array breakdown in a month or so. 😉
 
Gee, a gust of wind could blow that thing down easily, looks so unstable, he could have at least made some legs for it.
 
Originally posted by: jliechty
Crap, that's a lot of storage. Hope he's got them in RAID 5, cause if not, he'll be due for an array breakdown in a month or so. 😉
Click to expand...

Not to single you out, but it gets tiring to read post after post of anti-Raid0 goodness...

I ran an IDE-based 24x10GB array for 3 yrs (24x7, rebooted only twice) without a single failure.

I guess I've done the impossible in spite of public opinion.

Someone should have told me I was such an extremely lucky idiot...

Er, let me qualify that...someone with experience in large disk arrays and ide hdrive issues (beyond reciting other peoples opinions they've read on forums) should have told me I was such an extremely lucky idiot.

Not that anyone should/will believe me but it is *possible* to build large IDE-based arrays and safely employ them in ones endeavors...

From what I can tell, most of the anti-raid0 posters should get rid of their 2-4 platter hard drives and buy only single-platter hard-drives, afterall having one multi-platter hard-drive in your computer case is really no different than a single-platter raid0 disk array...

- Joe Schmoe (the ignorant consumer guy y'all like to talk about in your forum arguments)
 
Those are SCSI drives, people. When was the last time you saw FIVE IDE DRIVES ON THE SAME CABLE?

Besides, look at their height. 2x size.
rolleye.gif
Either they are SCSI or the old 463mb Connor drives. More
rolleye.gif
 
Do I get fame and fortune if I post some pictured of our FC-AL arrays?

More capacity and more bandwidth.
 
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: MichaelD
Those are SCSI drives, people. When was the last time you saw FIVE IDE DRIVES ON THE SAME CABLE?

Besides, look at their height. 2x size.
rolleye.gif
Either they are SCSI or the old 463mb Connor drives. More
rolleye.gif
Click to expand...

Sorry...8 drives and 4 cables...they're IDE. Also, see the linux screen shot -> recognized as (U)DMA ...
Click to expand...

The top half of the case in the photo I linked to has only one cable going to it....
 
Originally posted by: MichaelD
Those are SCSI drives, people. When was the last time you saw FIVE IDE DRIVES ON THE SAME CABLE?

Besides, look at their height. 2x size.
rolleye.gif
Either they are SCSI or the old 463mb Connor drives. More
rolleye.gif
Click to expand...

Don't know what you are looking at, as I see 8 drives and 4 cables (2 onboard, 2 on a PCI card). They are ATA drives. If you read the original post you have seen this:

"He bought 17 of the cheapest IDE drives available and used Linux'"

I ran an IDE-based 24x10GB array for 3 yrs (24x7, rebooted only twice) without a single failure.
Click to expand...

I'm interested in what hardware you used to achieve that.
 
OK...after looking at it carefully, I can see the two IDE cables plugged into the mobo....those yellow cables just seem to be one big cable though....damn these blurry contacts. 😉
 
Forget looking at the cables, the boot screen is detecting 2MB cache 120GB UDMA(100) drives. There has never been a 120GB SCSI drive, nor are there any 2MB SCSI drives still sold, nor would SCSI drives be detected as UDMA(100) drives.
 
Originally posted by: Pariah
Forget looking at the cables, the boot screen is detecting 2MB cache 120GB UDMA(100) drives. There has never been a 120GB SCSI drive, nor are there any 2MB SCSI drives still sold, nor would SCSI drives be detected as UDMA(100) drives.
Click to expand...

Aye this is all true...

I must admit I wouldnt mind owning that, but 1 more thing I would like to point out,
I think its extremely stupid that hes got the drive tower the way round that hes got it.

I mean in this pic I personally would have them the other way around so that the weight was closer to the bottom and it would be more stable. Infact, if i had the money he must have, and had it my way, I would mod a case to hold them specifically.

Just my thoughts.

Dan 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top