20 Mar
2006
20 Mar
'06
6:08 p.m.
On Monday 20 March 2006 08:42 pm, Don Y wrote:
Tom Peters wrote:
Let's see, a box of old, small capacity drives, reliability unknown...
why
The two boxes currently have seven 9G drives, each. I have a box
of 18G drives that can replace these -- *IF* I can talk to the
boxes!
Heh...
I've got a box where I'm building up a RAID array w/ 2G drives!
Only because I got given a whole pile of these for free. A while back there
were a whole mess of 9G SCSI-wide drives around in the surplus market, and my
inclination is to eventually get a hold of some of those and upgrade the
array to that size, eventually, when I can accumulate enough of them. I
really can't afford to invest in them if I had to buy them, though.
I'm mainly just inclined to use what I've got, I guess.
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
Edward wrote:
Yes, but is it LVD to the tray or HVD?
E.g. I have found that the D1000 is *H*VD -- so my *L*VD
controllers won't talk to it. :-(
It's HVD I'm afraid.
>> Each array can be used as a JBOD if you like.
>
> Ah, thanks. would you NOT make a RAID out of it?
Because I don't have the controller that they attach to! :>
So, they are, at best, JBOD's. What I *do* with those
(e.g., software RAID) is a different issue.
Why put data on them if you're not
all that concerned about it going away when one of those old drives goes
tango uniform (toes up) ? With that many independent drives, couldn't you
make a really big RAID-5 out of it?
The data I want to store on them is already backed up on
MO, CD-R and DLT media. Getting the data onto a drive array
is just one of convenience. And, while 15x18G drives waste
more electricity, BTUs and *space* than a single 300G *IDE*
drive, couldn't you argue that damn near ANY of the machines
discussed on this list could be more "efficiently" replaced
by something newer, smaller, faster, etc.? :>