> > I've got to start choosing my words more carefully. I was > speaking of > > software RAID. Software RAID could be done on a single HD > (not that I > > recommend it in any way). > > Whoa there! I'm going to have to give you some shit about > that statement. The > very concept of RAID requires you to have more that one disk. > However, you could > mirror two partitions on a single drive just so that you had > two copies of > something. That way if you were about to change something on > a really important > production machine and wanted a golden parachute to bail you > out if in case > something were to go wrong. Then you would just stop > mirroring and perform the > operation just on one partition, if all goes well remirror. > If it doesn't, boot > off the unmodified partition and your back where you started. > However, this > wouldn't offer any performance advantages. Actually it would > reduce performance > by half since it has to write everything twice. Exactly, why I said I don't recommend it. It seems nobody is reading the entire comments here. I said you could. I didn't say you should. In fact you shouldn't, but you "CAN". > > > SCSI is not that much more expensive than ATAPI. > > Hogwash! You can get an 80GB 7200rpm UltraDMA100 (or > UltraDMA133 I think it is > now) for $160 > > The same size for an Ultra160 SCSI version will cost you $500 > (Going off prices > from www.pricewatch.com) 37 GB IBM Ultrastar SCSI $159 15K RPM 40 GB Maxtor $85 7200 RPM 2x speed 2x price. From pricewatch. To me that is comparable prices. Of course there might be a cheaper model at 7200 (I didn't see any, but I do have prejudices against certain manufacturers) Also there may be a widening gap as size increases. I don't really watch it that closely. So if I seem ignorant please forgive me, but this is the way I see it. My own SCSI system (not in use right now) is used primarily for airfoil design (aka 3d modeling) and makes extensive reads and writes to the disk. So I can notice the speed differences between 7200 RPM and 15K RPM. > > Then lets not forget the controller. A basic Adaptec 19160 > controller will cost > you an additional $150 if your motherboard doesn't already have a scsi > controller built in. (Not many do) Yes good SCSI controllers will cost you some money. Even bad SCSI controllers will cost you some money. > > > I said SCSI because of speed [10-15K RPM], up to 2x as fast as > > ATAPI can get (money is no object argument is no longer > valid). And I > > said recommend, not must have. We are talking about a file > server, and I > > don't know what he is planning on using it for. > > A file server for home.... Home being the key word there. Now > even if he does > have cable or DSL, his bottleneck isn't going to be the hard > drive speed. It's > going to be the internet connection he has. The "money is no > object argument" is > still very much valid. I mean, if you can get your company to > foot the bill, go > ahead and spring for the SCSI. However, unless your going to > be doing some > really freaky shit, you won't notice the difference in a real > world environment. Well, that depends on what you call real freaky sh**. We are talking about a "file server". So I would guess that it would spend most of it's time serving up files. Therefore most of the time the hard drives are being accessed and data transmitted via the network. I didn't see any reference to internet in there. Like I said, that was my recommendation. I stand by it. Although, I realize that not very many people are going to get a SCSI system for a budget home file server, because, you can get twice the size for the same price (even if it is half the speed). I have 1 SCSI drive myself, it is used for a special purpose machine and it is absolutely necessary for my purpose. It takes me 30 - 45 minutes to render a single foil. It takes 1 - 2 hours on an ATAPI disk. Even I can notice that difference! But then airfoil design is kind of freaky sh**! I am also working on a rocket engine design (yes I am an amateur rocket scientist). ;') 'nuf said, Brian P.S. Thanks for the stimulating discussion.