RAID 10 & hardware questions.
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Posted by Julie on October 7, 2007, 8:24 pm
Please log in for more thread options are fast and reliable and at a reasonable price. They're for business, not gaming. I've built a lot of computers, but I've gotten stuck with this one and after spending the week researching CPU's and MB's, my brain is a bit fried. For this project, I might be going with Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and 8GB of DDR2 (not DDR3). I've started off with this as my hardware RAID controller: 3ware 9650SE-4LPML PCI Express Lanes: 4 SATA II Controller Card RAID Levels 0, 1, 5, 10 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16816116042 And for hard disks, these seemed like a good fit (4 each + 1 spare for "just in case"): Seagate Barracuda ES ST3750640NS 750GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16822148152 For the PSU, I'm going with what I'm comfortable and happy with: Antec Phantom 500 ATX12V 500W I'm having a problem deciding which CPU to get. I've looked at the Intel Extreme, Dual Core and Quad Core. There are a bunch of seemingly similar ones to choose from. I'm looking for something as fast as possible but below $500. I've read tons of reviews and so many seemed to be aimed at gamers. Since I'm looking for reliability (they're running a business, not games), I don't want to overclock and deal with any complaints. Then comes the motherboard issue. I been reading reviews of them all week and I can't seem to home in one. Previously, I used Intel Dual Cores with relatively simple Asus MB's, Antec Sonata II cases with Zalman fans and I've had no issues. Since there are 4 hard disks, I'm going to need a case with a fan that cools the hard disks. Again, I've read several dozen reviews, been to computer stores (terribly limited selections) and I can't find a case that seems meets my needs (filter, fans, easy disk access, well-built). The funky gamer cases are a definite no-no. I don't know why I'm feeling so lost with this project. I would appreciate any suggestions you can offer. | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by kony on October 8, 2007, 2:35 am
Please log in for more thread options It's not reliability that's the factor, it's how many simultaneous demanding threads the system will run. >
>Then comes the motherboard issue. I been reading reviews of them all >week and I can't seem to home in one. Previously, I used Intel Dual >Cores with relatively simple Asus MB's, Antec Sonata II cases with >Zalman fans and I've had no issues. If you're familiar with certain boards and have to support "issues", that is a good justificaton to stick with what you are comfortabe supporting, so long as it meets the need. >
>Since there are 4 hard disks, I'm going to need a case with a fan that >cools the hard disks. Again, I've read several dozen reviews, been to >computer stores (terribly limited selections) and I can't find a case >that seems meets my needs (filter, fans, easy disk access, well-built). > The funky gamer cases are a definite no-no. The ideal for 4 disks is a case with 2, 92mm fans. 92mm is the widest you can fit while the diameter is small enough that the drive rack completely encloses it, resulting in all intake airflow flowing through the rack. However, in a moderate environment, it may not matter having a single 120mm intake fan instead, so long as there is some space (I recommend at least 1cm inbetween each drive) between drives in the rack. Some racks allow this but others try to get as many drive mounting positions as possible leaving no space between them, so in this latter case you should leave an empty drive space between each drive. >
>I don't know why I'm feeling so lost with this project. I would >appreciate any suggestions you can offer. Case depends a lot on budget. There are a lot of options. I suggest you go to Newegg and look over what they have, because unlike many vendors they have reasonable pictures, to know more about the interior of the case you're considering. | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by Paul on October 8, 2007, 4:44 am
Please log in for more thread options Julie wrote:
> I've been asked to build a number of Windows based computers that are
> are fast and reliable and at a reasonable price. They're for business, > not gaming. I've built a lot of computers, but I've gotten stuck with > this one and after spending the week researching CPU's and MB's, my > brain is a bit fried. > > For this project, I might be going with Windows XP Professional x64 > Edition and 8GB of DDR2 (not DDR3). > > I've started off with this as my hardware RAID controller: > > 3ware 9650SE-4LPML PCI Express Lanes: 4 SATA II Controller Card RAID > Levels 0, 1, 5, 10 > > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16816116042 > > And for hard disks, these seemed like a good fit (4 each + 1 spare for > "just in case"): > > Seagate Barracuda ES ST3750640NS 750GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s > Hard Drive > > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16822148152 > > For the PSU, I'm going with what I'm comfortable and happy with: Antec > Phantom 500 ATX12V 500W > > I'm having a problem deciding which CPU to get. I've looked at the > Intel Extreme, Dual Core and Quad Core. There are a bunch of seemingly > similar ones to choose from. I'm looking for something as fast as > possible but below $500. I've read tons of reviews and so many seemed > to be aimed at gamers. Since I'm looking for reliability (they're > running a business, not games), I don't want to overclock and deal with > any complaints. > > Then comes the motherboard issue. I been reading reviews of them all > week and I can't seem to home in one. Previously, I used Intel Dual > Cores with relatively simple Asus MB's, Antec Sonata II cases with > Zalman fans and I've had no issues. > > Since there are 4 hard disks, I'm going to need a case with a fan that > cools the hard disks. Again, I've read several dozen reviews, been to > computer stores (terribly limited selections) and I can't find a case > that seems meets my needs (filter, fans, easy disk access, well-built). > The funky gamer cases are a definite no-no. > > I don't know why I'm feeling so lost with this project. I would > appreciate any suggestions you can offer. For a business, these could be servers or they could be desktops. The considerations might be quite different for each. For a processor, your choices are relatively simple. There are dual cores or quad cores. If this is a desktop, used for email, web surfing, Microsoft Office, then the fastest dual core will be relatively cheap and useful. If this is a server, with many tasks running on it at the same time, then a quad core might be a better fit for the job. One tough question people ask right now, is which of the following is better. Both are $280. Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz LGA 775 Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 Conroe 3.0GHz LGA 775 Processor In terms of total compute power, the first one is 4 x 2400, while the second is 2 x 3000. For a single piece of software that can spread to all four cores, the first processor is able to do more work (9600 units of power versus 6000 for the other one). Or, if the first processor was hosting virtual sessions of some sort, and is heavily loaded, the 9600 units of compute power will be better than the 6000 units of the second choice. On the other hand, if a person is running single threaded software (desktop scenario), a program which only makes use of one core, the second processor would be better for that kind of task. Plenty of legacy software might run 25% faster on the second processor, than on the first (due to the clock rate available on the second one). You could always explain this to the customer, and fill them in on the choices. Issues with RAID: Pros: 1) Using one of the reliable RAID standards listed for your controller (1, 5, 10), if a single disk fails, the array can run in degraded mode, until service personnel can be dispatched. The machine continues to do useful work. Cons: 1) Complexity. In a desktop scenario, the typical user flips out, if they see any mention of "degrade" or "fail". Degrades are a normal occurrence when a computer starts, and perhaps one drive is not ready in time. While you can set up the RAID monitoring software to send an email, in case of trouble, that doesn't prevent the users from seeing what is going on. And flipped out users are not happy users. 2) A RAID equipped machine should be on a UPS. That allows orderly shutdown, in the event of a power disruption. 3) A RAID is not a replacement for backups. If the idea was "I'll just use this RAID 1 as an automatic backup system", think again. If the power supply overvolts on +12V, and burns the motors on all the disk drives, you have no backup copy. Also, I've been a user in a large corporate environment, where the RAID5 hardware controller for a major software server decided to scribble all over the array, requiring a restore from tape during daylight hours. Hundreds of people were twiddling their thumbs for three hours while that was rectified. If you use a single disk per machine, the failure scenario is always the same. Someone has to be dispatched pronto to fix it. If you use the RAID, they don't have to arrive on scene quite as quickly, except in cases where the entire array was destroyed. But the RAID may have more nuisance maintenance calls, either due to user stupidity, or due to the disks not playing nice all the time. Certainly, the people who post here, who have no backup copies of their data, and have just discovered a degraded or failed RAID, they're pretty frantic. So there is a tendency to place too much trust in the RAID, whereas if they had an "unreliable" setup, they might be more approachable about setting up an automatic daily backup system. I also saw mention of 8GB of RAM in your grocery list. That should be equipped with ECC, as that amount of RAM represent an exposure for a business and reliable computing. To use ECC DDR2, you'd need a 975X motherboard, as that chipset supports ECC. I'm not sure there are too many other choices for ECC equipped desktop motherboards. (Server boards would be better equipped in that regard.) ECC makes a big difference to your planning process, since it is not supported very well on current Intel desktops. The X38 motherboards coming out soon, would represent the replacement for the 975X, but those probably won't be ready in time if you are shopping today. (This is the master list at Asus. There are X38 boards listed here, and those could support ECC. I cannot get to any of the product pages that link off this page right now.) http://www.asus.com.tw/products2.aspx?l1=3&l2=-1 (These two are FSB1333 capable, if you check the Asus CPU Support page. Chipset is 975X.) ASUS P5W64 WS Professional T (LGA 775) Intel 975X 12" x 9.6" $295 http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16813131047 ASUS P5WDG2-WS PRO T (LGA 775) Intel 975X 12" x 9.6" $285 http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16813131039 2x2GB DDR2 unbuffered memory kits, equipped with ECC. Fastest is PC2-5300 CAS5. http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010170541+1052315794+1052707870&Subcategory=541 On a real server board, you might see FBDIMMs being used, and those are fully protected. In terms of coverage on ECC, AMD processors are in much better shape. The memory controller is inside the processor. ECC is part of the architecture, and the designer only has to wire up the DIMM sockets for it to work. But in terms of compute power, the picture is quite different. It almost sounds like you're trying to use a desktop to take the place of a server. Details are important. HTH, Paul | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by Julie on October 8, 2007, 8:11 am
Please log in for more thread options Paul wrote:
> Julie wrote:
>> I've been asked to build a number of Windows based computers that are
>> are fast and reliable and at a reasonable price. They're for >> business, not gaming. I've built a lot of computers, but I've gotten >> stuck with this one and after spending the week researching CPU's and >> MB's, my brain is a bit fried. >> >> For this project, I might be going with Windows XP Professional x64 >> Edition and 8GB of DDR2 (not DDR3). >> >> I've started off with this as my hardware RAID controller: >> >> 3ware 9650SE-4LPML PCI Express Lanes: 4 SATA II Controller Card RAID >> Levels 0, 1, 5, 10 >> >> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16816116042 >> >> And for hard disks, these seemed like a good fit (4 each + 1 spare for >> "just in case"): >> >> Seagate Barracuda ES ST3750640NS 750GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA >> 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive >> >> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16822148152 >> >> For the PSU, I'm going with what I'm comfortable and happy with: Antec >> Phantom 500 ATX12V 500W >> >> I'm having a problem deciding which CPU to get. I've looked at the >> Intel Extreme, Dual Core and Quad Core. There are a bunch of seemingly >> similar ones to choose from. I'm looking for something as fast as >> possible but below $500. I've read tons of reviews and so many seemed >> to be aimed at gamers. Since I'm looking for reliability (they're >> running a business, not games), I don't want to overclock and deal >> with any complaints. >> >> Then comes the motherboard issue. I been reading reviews of them all >> week and I can't seem to home in one. Previously, I used Intel Dual >> Cores with relatively simple Asus MB's, Antec Sonata II cases with >> Zalman fans and I've had no issues. >> >> Since there are 4 hard disks, I'm going to need a case with a fan that >> cools the hard disks. Again, I've read several dozen reviews, been to >> computer stores (terribly limited selections) and I can't find a case >> that seems meets my needs (filter, fans, easy disk access, >> well-built). The funky gamer cases are a definite no-no. >> >> I don't know why I'm feeling so lost with this project. I would >> appreciate any suggestions you can offer. >
> For a business, these could be servers or they could be desktops. > The considerations might be quite different for each. > > For a processor, your choices are relatively simple. There are dual > cores or quad cores. If this is a desktop, used for email, web surfing, > Microsoft Office, then the fastest dual core will be relatively cheap > and useful. If this is a server, with many tasks running on it at the > same time, then a quad core might be a better fit for the job. > > One tough question people ask right now, is which of the following > is better. Both are $280. > > Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz LGA 775 > Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 Conroe 3.0GHz LGA 775 Processor These are the two that I read up quite a bit but I got terribly confused. Just when I was thought the Q6600 was the way to go, I read some (seemingly) conflicting opinions. >
> In terms of total compute power, the first one is 4 x 2400, while the > second is 2 x 3000. For a single piece of software that can spread > to all four cores, the first processor is able to do more work (9600 > units of power versus 6000 for the other one). Or, if the first processor > was hosting virtual sessions of some sort, and is heavily loaded, the > 9600 units of compute power will be better than the 6000 units of the > second choice. The computers will be used for fairly ordinary stuff, including PhotoShop CS2 which is very CPU and disk demanding. They'll be using Photoshop, email, virus checking, browsing and all the usual stuff. The users are very low on patience. It sounds like from what you're describing that the E6850 is the way to go. Am I correct? What about the Intel Extreme? I think that once I know which CPU is the way to go, picking a MB should be fairly easy. But the cases are driving me nuts. I just don't know if the Antec Sonota (which are small and sturdy) will have enough air-flow for the 4 hard disks. I find them them easy to build and very quiet with the correct components. Did I also mention that they want to the computers to be as quiet as possible? >
> On the other hand, if a person is running single threaded software (desktop > scenario), a program which only makes use of one core, the second processor > would be better for that kind of task. Plenty of legacy software might > run 25% > faster on the second processor, than on the first (due to the clock rate > available on the second one). > > You could always explain this to the customer, and fill them in on the > choices. No, they don't want choices. That's why they're paying me. I'm the person who has to put together the systems. >
> Issues with RAID: > > Pros: > > 1) Using one of the reliable RAID standards listed for your controller > (1, 5, 10), > if a single disk fails, the array can run in degraded mode, until > service > personnel can be dispatched. The machine continues to do useful work. > > Cons: > > 1) Complexity. In a desktop scenario, the typical user flips out, if they > see any mention of "degrade" or "fail". Degrades are a normal occurrence > when a computer starts, and perhaps one drive is not ready in time. > While > you can set up the RAID monitoring software to send an email, in case of > trouble, that doesn't prevent the users from seeing what is going on. > And > flipped out users are not happy users. > > 2) A RAID equipped machine should be on a UPS. That allows orderly > shutdown, > in the event of a power disruption. I already told them that a UPS was mandatory. I use APC UPS 1200's and set the voltage window to be as narrow as possible. >
> 3) A RAID is not a replacement for backups. If the idea was "I'll just use > this RAID 1 as an automatic backup system", think again. If the power > supply overvolts on +12V, and burns the motors on all the disk drives, > you have no backup copy. Also, I've been a user in a large corporate > environment, where the RAID5 hardware controller for a major software > server decided to scribble all over the array, requiring a restore from > tape during daylight hours. Hundreds of people were twiddling their > thumbs > for three hours while that was rectified. I've drilled backup-backup-backup into their heads (to both DVDs and to an external hard disk) and already told them that RAID 10 will protect them from a hard disk failure but not from data loss (del *.*, viruses or data corruption). I'm going to include an external hard drive enclosure as part of the package. I use Ghost 2003 but I think that they might have problems with that; it's a little on the geeky side. I saw Ghost 12.1 but I never used it. I haven't tried any consumer backup packages. >
> If you use a single disk per machine, the failure scenario is always > the same. Someone has to be dispatched pronto to fix it. If you use > the RAID, they don't have to arrive on scene quite as quickly, except in > cases where the entire array was destroyed. But the RAID may have more > nuisance maintenance calls, either due to user stupidity, or due to the > disks not playing nice all the time. > > Certainly, the people who post here, who have no backup copies of their > data, and have just discovered a degraded or failed RAID, they're pretty > frantic. So there is a tendency to place too much trust in the RAID, > whereas if they had an "unreliable" setup, they might be more approachable > about setting up an automatic daily backup system. > > I also saw mention of 8GB of RAM in your grocery list. That should be > equipped with ECC, as that amount of RAM represent an exposure for a > business and reliable computing. To use ECC DDR2, you'd need a 975X > motherboard, as that chipset supports ECC. I'm not sure there are too > many other choices for ECC equipped desktop motherboards. (Server > boards would be better equipped in that regard.) ECC makes > a big difference to your planning process, since it is not supported > very well on current Intel desktops. The X38 motherboards coming out soon, > would represent the replacement for the 975X, but those probably won't > be ready in time if you are shopping today. That might be overkill for this project. They're not running 24x7. >
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010170541+1052315794+1052707870&Subcategory=541
> (This is the master list at Asus. There are X38 boards listed here, > and those could support ECC. I cannot get to any of the product pages > that link off this page right now.) > > http://www.asus.com.tw/products2.aspx?l1=3&l2=-1 > > (These two are FSB1333 capable, if you check the Asus CPU Support page. > Chipset is 975X.) > > ASUS P5W64 WS Professional T (LGA 775) Intel 975X 12" x 9.6" $295 > http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16813131047 > > ASUS P5WDG2-WS PRO T (LGA 775) Intel 975X 12" x 9.6" $285 > http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16813131039 > > 2x2GB DDR2 unbuffered memory kits, equipped with ECC. Fastest is > PC2-5300 CAS5. > > >
> > On a real server board, you might see FBDIMMs being used, and those > are fully protected. > > In terms of coverage on ECC, AMD processors are in much better shape. > The memory controller is inside the processor. ECC is part of the > architecture, and the designer only has to wire up the DIMM sockets > for it to work. But in terms of compute power, the picture is > quite different. > > It almost sounds like you're trying to use a desktop to take the place > of a server. Details are important. No, they won't be servers. They are desktops, but they want speed, speed, speed and as much reliability as reasonably possible (UPS, RAID 10, backups, routers). They're loading multiple 100+MB files and it's currently taking forever. One of the systems was taking 20 minutes to boot up but I was able to get it down to 4 minutes just by talking them through some steps. Some of the performance factor is lack of computer maintenance on the part of the user, user not knowing how to use the programs properly and the other is that the computers are 3+ years old. The external hard disk enclosures will be SATA connected. I get nearly 2GB/min performance with my current systems. >
> HTH, > Paul | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by Paul on October 8, 2007, 9:45 am
Please log in for more thread options Julie wrote:
>
> The computers will be used for fairly ordinary stuff, including > PhotoShop CS2 which is very CPU and disk demanding. They'll be using > Photoshop, email, virus checking, browsing and all the usual stuff. The > users are very low on patience. It sounds like from what you're > describing that the E6850 is the way to go. Am I correct? What about > the Intel Extreme? Photoshop is a bit of an issue when it comes to benchmarks. Some of the filters are multiprocessor aware and some are single threaded. In addition, there may be issues as the number of cores grows. Some of the Mac people in the past, who have done Photoshop benchmarks, break the results down by filter. There have been a couple benches constructed, where one benchmark concentrates on single core and one concentrates on the multicore ones. Many review sites now, use benchmarks they constructed themselves, and don't explain what was tested. Which leaves the reader of the articles in a lurch. Here, a quad at 2.66GHz runs a bench in 113 seconds, compared to a dual at 2.93GHz running the same in 124 seconds. So the quad looks worthwhile, for a slight increase. http://www.techspot.com/review/27-intel-core2-extreme-qx6700-quad/page6.html There are a few comments about the above article, here. http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/quadcore-riot-intel-core-2-quadro-chips-hit-the-streets-211874.php the software. If we look at Tomshardware, you'll notice the dual core is still beating the quad core, only in this case they use Photoshop CS3 and their own benchmark. It doesn't look like they've fixed their results. http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=872&model2=871&chart=437 The guy here, knows a bit about the filters, and the filter choice in the benchmark helps pick a winner. http://www.barefeats.com/quad11.html I know at this point, your head is spinning (and mine hurts a bit too). So for fun, now I switch to Cinebench. Cinebench is closer to a perfect scaling application. When doubling the cores doesn't double the results, you can blame memory bandwidth, FSB bottleneck with X cores, or make up your own theory. In the chart at the bottom, the Q6700 doesn't do bad, and it costs $540 :-) Job done. Your customers can while away their days, tweaking Photoshop themselves :-) http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/07/17/intel_core_2_qx6850_e6850_e6750/7 >
> I think that once I know which CPU is the way to go, picking a MB should > be fairly easy. But the cases are driving me nuts. I just don't know > if the Antec Sonota (which are small and sturdy) will have enough > air-flow for the 4 hard disks. I find them them easy to build and very > quiet with the correct components. Did I also mention that they want to > the computers to be as quiet as possible? The computer I'm typing on, is an original Antec Sonata. It has a 120mm in the back. The lower drive rack, is side mounted. It holds four drives, and each one fits a tray with rubber grommets. You bolt the drive to the tray, then slide the tray into the side mounted rack. The only issue with that, is occasionally the cables interfere with the door, so the cables have to be tucked in. With SATA drives, you'd want to look for some right angle or left angle cables, to prevent the door from being an issue. What I did to mine, is removed the front plastic bezel, and pulled the removable air filter permanently. This leaves some nice holes in the front of the computer. In the back, I fitted the biggest 120mm money can buy. Fresh air enters through the holes, and immediately hits the disks. The rear fan is on a voltage reducer, and even then, is not quiet. I don't think you want to do that (use a 110CFM fan). But you can still borrow from the concept and select a slower 120mm fan. My case temp is only a few degrees above room temp. (I even have a sensor on the front of the computer, that measures room temp, and uses the third channel of the hardware monitor.) (My 120mm fan :-) An impulse buy at a local electronics store. ) http://www.circuittest.com/English/Content/Items/CFA1212038MS.asp Once the restrictions on the front of the case are removed, the drives will be nicely cooled. If you want a big case, a CMStacker is one option. In one of the reviews on this page, one of the reviewers gives a list of model numbers and what you get with them in terms of features. See "Great Case, Confusing Model Numbers" http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16811119042 >
> > No, they don't want choices. That's why they're paying me. I'm the > person who has to put together the systems. OK. I've worked in places, where the staff I work with, know more about what they're buying, than the builder. >
> I've drilled backup-backup-backup into their heads (to both DVDs and to > an external hard disk) and already told them that RAID 10 will protect > them from a hard disk failure but not from data loss (del *.*, viruses > or data corruption). I'm going to include an external hard drive > enclosure as part of the package. I use Ghost 2003 but I think that > they might have problems with that; it's a little on the geeky side. I > saw Ghost 12.1 but I never used it. I haven't tried any consumer backup > packages. Well, this is where you "meet or exceed" expectations. Come up with a backup scheme that requires minimal interaction from them. I've seen some neat schemes where I've worked, but they took money. One scheme backed up the data, into another country :-) >>
>> I also saw mention of 8GB of RAM in your grocery list. That should be >> equipped with ECC, as that amount of RAM represent an exposure for a >> business and reliable computing. To use ECC DDR2, you'd need a 975X >> motherboard, as that chipset supports ECC. I'm not sure there are too >> many other choices for ECC equipped desktop motherboards. (Server >> boards would be better equipped in that regard.) ECC makes >> a big difference to your planning process, since it is not supported >> very well on current Intel desktops. The X38 motherboards coming out >> soon, >> would represent the replacement for the 975X, but those probably won't >> be ready in time if you are shopping today. >
> That might be overkill for this project. They're not running 24x7. Well, what happens when there is a memory error ? >>
>> It almost sounds like you're trying to use a desktop to take the place >> of a server. Details are important. >
> No, they won't be servers. They are desktops, but they want speed, > speed, speed and as much reliability as reasonably possible (UPS, RAID > 10, backups, routers). They're loading multiple 100+MB files and it's > currently taking forever. One of the systems was taking 20 minutes to > boot up but I was able to get it down to 4 minutes just by talking them > through some steps. Some of the performance factor is lack of computer > maintenance on the part of the user, user not knowing how to use the > programs properly and the other is that the computers are 3+ years old. > > The external hard disk enclosures will be SATA connected. I get nearly > 2GB/min performance with my current systems. So this is really a desktop scenario. If the desktop falls over, or the current work is corrupted, they go back to the last saved state. The only cost, is a little cursing and swearing. Been there, done that (the cursing and swearing I mean). Paul | |||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| RAID 10 & hardware questions. | October 7, 2007, 8:24 pm |
| Some questions about Raid 0. its for a new PC. | December 26, 2005, 11:36 am |
| Getting a RAID-0 with SATA and a RAID-1 with IDE / ATA to work again | October 12, 2007, 6:33 am |
| Hardware Help | January 25, 2007, 2:19 pm |
| do you someone heare about this hardware? | March 24, 2005, 12:26 am |
| Advice on hardware | May 27, 2005, 12:06 pm |
| New CAN and LIN hardware and Software | June 2, 2005, 5:35 pm |
| problem with hardware | December 9, 2005, 5:57 am |
| What is this hardware called? | October 9, 2006, 8:39 am |
| Hardware reviews. | June 12, 2007, 4:08 pm |
| Hardware news! | June 18, 2007, 5:12 pm |
| Hardware tips | June 23, 2007, 12:31 pm |
| Re: Hardware.News | June 25, 2007, 5:08 pm |
| Looking for some computer hardware? | November 22, 2007, 6:52 pm |
| New PC - hardware recommendations | October 2, 2008, 4:49 pm |
>are fast and reliable and at a reasonable price. They're for business,
>not gaming. I've built a lot of computers, but I've gotten stuck with
>this one and after spending the week researching CPU's and MB's, my
>brain is a bit fried.
>
>For this project, I might be going with Windows XP Professional x64
>Edition and 8GB of DDR2 (not DDR3).
>
>I've started off with this as my hardware RAID controller:
>
>3ware 9650SE-4LPML PCI Express Lanes: 4 SATA II Controller Card RAID
>Levels 0, 1, 5, 10
>
>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16816116042
>
>And for hard disks, these seemed like a good fit (4 each + 1 spare for
>"just in case"):
>
>Seagate Barracuda ES ST3750640NS 750GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s
>Hard Drive
>
>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16822148152
>
>For the PSU, I'm going with what I'm comfortable and happy with: Antec
>Phantom 500 ATX12V 500W
>
>I'm having a problem deciding which CPU to get. I've looked at the
>Intel Extreme, Dual Core and Quad Core. There are a bunch of seemingly
>similar ones to choose from. I'm looking for something as fast as
>possible but below $500. I've read tons of reviews and so many seemed
>to be aimed at gamers. Since I'm looking for reliability (they're
>running a business, not games), I don't want to overclock and deal with
>any complaints.