It’s about time for me to get a new desktop. The Dell is slow, old and balky. I’m trying to decide what I need but I am about as un-with-it computerese as they come. Here are some basics: -- don’t play games much at all, not too much IM-ing -- do fiddle a lot with photos, store photos, graphic programs, burning CDs, music, etc. -- my main characteristic is I usually have three or four or five programs running at once. -- other stuff is just usual standard computing -- Word, Excel, taxes, other programs. The Dell has been OK but the service was just awful, so I’m thinking of not reupping with them. I like the HP s3200z (compact tower). Almost all the HPs come with Windows Vista (XP not available) and this one has an AMD processor AOT Intel. I rough configured one with the following: Operating system Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium (32-bit) Processor AMD Athlon(TM) 64 X2 4600+ dual-core - 2.4GHz Memory 2GB DDR2-667MHz dual channel SDRAM (2x1024) Graphics Card 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8400GS, DVI-I, HDMI Networking 802.11 b/g USB Wireless LAN card Hard Drive 500GB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive Primary CD/DVD Drive LightScribe 16X max. DVD+/-R/RW SuperMulti drive Does this sound reasonable for what I use it for? Any thoughts on AMD vs. Intel, or HP vs. Dell, or Vista vs. Windows XP or any other ideas would be greatly appreciated by this computer unsavvy person.
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Nov 5 2007 : 7:03PM
For someone who doesn't game the graphics card may be unnecessarily beefy. You would be fine with a geforce 6xxx series or 7xxx. Otherwise it seems very good. The only issue I have is with Vista. My suggestion is to use XP for the next 2 years or so and buy Vista when it has been proven not to be a broken piece of shit. EDIT: did some research. Get a GeForce 7600GT instead. It may actually perform *better* then the 8400GS. EDIT AGAIN: Intel chip sets have served me well the entire time I have been using window's/DOS (I am an old timey Mac person). I have never had any problems with them but I don't have any AMD experience either. Same with Nvidia and ATI, I only use Nvidia so I only like Nvidia. But it is only because of ignorance of ATI, not testing that I don't recommend their stuff. Edited by - conquistador on 11/5/2007 7:33:49 PM
Currently, the stuff I read says that Intel dual core beats out comparable AMD processors. I don't know what is right over the horizon though. I suppose this war is apt to ebb and flow regularly over time. Personally I've had very good experience with both, lately mostly AMD. I'd go with either, depending on which had the best reviews/deals/etc. at the time I was shopping. About the other things you mention, including brand names and Vista: Do you have a computer shop within reasonable driving range? If so, shop them too. Use comparible specs, and get them to price out a system for you. It will be custom built. You'll be able to get WinXP this way, right? And probably a full retail version on CD, not some OEM version. You won't get a bunch of junk installed that you don't want. You can look up all the components that the shop proposes to use. See if the prices quoted are reasonable, and read comments about the components. This way, you can be assured of high quality, reputable parts. I doubt you get to know just what a Dell or whatever is made out of. :) All this assumes that you don't want to assemble it yourself. :)
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Nov 5 2007 : 7:37PM
Just wanted to point out that the difference in performance between comparably priced chips for billy is minimal because he doesn't do anything that really taxes either one, go for the cheapest.
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Nov 5 2007 : 7:38PM
Also totally forgot: You might have parts of your current computer that, if they are not disappointing you, do not need to be replaced and can be cannibalized, saving money.
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Nov 5 2007 : 7:46PM
Hard drives are mighty cheap these days; you might want to try to get a RAID set-up (the kind that has one drive mirroring the other), especially if you're not vigilant about making frequent back-ups.
Long and Cursive road to the Ivory Pagoda in the province of Loraine 4076 Posts 12/03
Posted - Nov 5 2007 : 9:33PM
Intel is leading the chips wars at the moment and probably will into the new year. Intel is out performing, but AMDs will be cheaper. The ATI vs. nVidia isn't that important to you since you don't game, so I wouldn't worry about that. NVidia is on top in that fight at the moment. Especially drivers. The dx10 cards will be coming soon and the other cards will drop in price before too long. But always remember when upgrading, something is always about to come out. If you can add RAM, I would, if possible. If not, make sure you have available slots to add RAM later. RAM is the easiest and fastest performance booster there out there. I assume there is since you show 2 gig sticks. I have had Dells and Hps and been happy with both. I would also suggest checking out a brick and mortar shop if possible. The repairs would be faster if that were needed.
You'll find a couple of custom computer companies on Reseller Ratings. You can configure their system based on the choices you made at HP to get an idea of the cost/value option. If you decide to have a system built locally you will have some info resources that'll help when making the decision. Check out Open Office. It is an office suite with a lot of bang for the buck...especially when the "buck' is free. Rc
I'd go with an Intel-based motherboard and CPU. I'd opt for DDR2-800MHz (the current, faster standard) over DDR2-667MHz RAM. If you have the time, browse computer components (motherboards, CPUs, video cards, sound cards, hard drives, CD/DVD drives) at [ invalid url ] to guide me on my way. [typo]
Even if you don't game, you probably will want a good graphics card. Slower graphics cards won't be able to handle HD video and will bring your whole system down a few notches performance wise. Personally, I'd go with a Pentium 4 instead of AMD. For Vista, I'd get the most amount of RAM I could afford. 2 gigs is OK but it's still down there close to the baseline on what Vista likes to have at it's disposal. I have 1 gig and manage but I wish I'd just had the maximum amount installed when I bought the thing. IF you can get it, I agree with the others. You'd probably be better off with XP than Vista for now. Just because you see a comparable system on store shelves doesn't mean it'll be able to handle everything that's coming shortly. I'd also try and make sure you get a reasonable number of USB ports. There seems to be a never ending supply of uses for them these days. It's nice to just be able to plug in what you want and be good to go. I don't know if they're still a big deal or not but you might want at least one Firewire port as well. Otherwise, everything sounds fine for your purposes. Just plan ahead. Technology pretty much goes obsolete as soon as you buy it these days Edited by - randomprecision on 11/6/2007 3:24:38 AM
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Nov 6 2007 : 3:58AM
A PCI card that will add 4 or more firewire ports is only 10-20 bucks. Only get it if you need it.
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Nov 6 2007 : 8:34AM
You can get PC's with XP installed and also a certificate that will allow you to install Vista a latter date.
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Nov 6 2007 : 8:43AM
I didn't know. Last time I was browsing in a computer store I couldn't find XP anywhere. But I could find several different types of VISTA. I was reading somewhere (you can probably find it) that as part of one of the latest Vista updates you can change the OS to XP. There are very few things that are Vista only so I don't really see any reason for it unless you happen to really like having a really bloated resource hogging OS.
Regarding graphics cards, from what I have read the differences between various cards' memory is not nearly as important as the bit-rate at which they process. In other words, you'd do much better with a card that has, say, 256MB RAM and 256-bit processing than a card that has 512MB RAM and 128-bit processing. 256-bit is the way to go.
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Nov 6 2007 : 11:18AM
Bob, thanks for the tip about finding a copy of XP. Currently I have more computers then I have operating systems and I wanted to try to find a cheap copy of XP home edition to install on one of my machines. I am aiming to set up a LAN for gaming in my house.
Writing "Home Edition?" was just my shorthand way of saying -- "Oh, if you're looking for Home Edition, here's where Newegg lists that one." Honestly, I was just trying to be helpful on the chance that you weren't familiar with the website and hadn't poked around to see if they carried other versions of Windows XP. I don't believe in buying more than you need (however you define "need"), either. If I come off as a scoffer -- particularly about material possessions -- I'd better gauge the tone of my posts more carefully. . . . [typo] Edited by - bob on 11/6/2007 6:55:27 PM
If you want to watch DVDs or HD/BlueRay content on your new PC, the best video card to buy would be one of the ATI 2600-XT series cards. It has all the hardware decoders built into the GPU and, unlike its nVidia counterpart (their 8600-series), it works. nVidia's got game -- beats the pants off ATI's gaming performance; but ATI's got video reproduction down pat. Look for an i35P (or older i965P) based motherboard from Gigabyte or Asus and a Core-2-series chip from Intel -- a better future-proof choice than the current crop of boards that are AMD oriented. Stick with DDR2 memory -- go for the lowest latency memory for your particular board rather than the highest clock speed memory -- serves you better in real-world applications as opposed to gaming and speed tests. Although Asus has held the crown among enthusiast boards for a while, Gigabyte has made a concerted effort to overthrow them, and, IMHO, has succeeded. My motherboard choices would be the GA-P35-DS3L or the GA-P35-DS3P The three sweet-spot processors at the moment are the Intel E6750 and E6850 (both dual core, and under $200 and $280, respecively) and the Q6600 (quad core, for $285). All three will run just fine with their stock retail heat syncs and fans unless you decide to over-clock the hell out of them (they can sustain a 40% OC with exceptional stability if you replace the heat sync & fan). Stick with XP Pro for the time being. Vista still has problems, regardless of what Microsoft says. Two 1-GB sticks of DDR2 is fine. For a desktop, why go wireless unless you can't reach the ethernet connection? Almost all boards have gigabit ethernet built in these days. I'm partial to WD's 320 & 500 GB drives, but Seagate is fine, too. Get the Samsung SH-S203N -- it's best of breed, currently. ~ GaySatyr (ABB)
Question: Newegg lists [ invalid url ] -- it's best of breed, currently.
Click to expand
I believe you, but how do you know? Personal experience? Reviews in publications? The customer reviews on Newegg (although admittedly ad hoc) are not as positive for the Samsung as for some other brands. In your view, is the Samsung just a better piece of hardware than the others or does its bundled software tip the scales? . . . [typo] Edited by - bob on 11/6/2007 6:26:54 PM
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Nov 6 2007 : 6:48PM
No worries Bob, you seemed surprised that I would want home edition. I just want it because I am cheap.
Books! excellent idea. In addition to the above recommendation, don't forget your local library. Free. :) Even if the books on building your own are a bit out of date, it is ok. Don't utilize the info on the then current component specs - do use the info on "how to", as that doesn't change much.
Bob, Of the five Gigabyte P35 boards currently available through newegg.com (there are actually 8 others, one of which I also like, but it's expensive), The GA-P35-DS3L is a basic board having the ICH9, the non-RAID version of the South Bridge chip. The others have the ICH9R which allows RAID in software (I think RAID 1 is an excellent option - I'll describe further below). Of the remaining four, 2 have both a PCI/e-16 slot (for the main graphics board) and a PCI/e-4 slot, an advantage for some optional GPU and other co-processor cards, should the need arise. I eliminate the DS3R as it adds nothing except the ability to add 4 additional SATA drives (common to all four of the ICH9R boards). I like the DS3P because it adds 3 firewire (IEEE 1394a connections). I avoid the C-DS3R because it lack firewire (although it adds the ability to use DDR3 memory if you so choose - more later). And I avoid the DS4 because, at that price, I'm looking at a custom machine that would be tailored to specific needs (probably the i38X or i48X chipsets), not a general recommendation for a reasonably low-budget, high-end, general-purpose machine. About DDR3: it's new, fast (but not as fast as it is going to be, high latency (a BIG negative for everyday applications - a 25% increase in latency requires a 33% increase in speed as compensation for effectively-equal, random throughput), temperamental, and VERY expensive. Eventually, its latency and price will come down and its temper will be placated. By then, you'll want another motherboard, anyway. Unless you're intent on being a world-class gamer, forget it for now. About the Samsung DVD/CD burner: I'm attempting to make a living building custom computers for discerning clients. I'm averaging about one a week (I'd like to be doing about 3 a week - if you know anyone who wants a custom rig, let me know.) The choices are Plextor (expensive) and everything else. Samsung OEMs to more than two dozen hardware vendors. The other choices are LG and Lite-On. Every other low-end drive, regardless of its big-brand name, is most likely one of those three. Of the three, Samsung has been my favorite since its 2nd generation dual-layer design. It also leads the others in writing speed across all the formats it covers. (It may be a tiny bit slower for a particular format, but it is generally faster for most all formats; whereas many of its competition are significantly slower for 1 or 2 of the "lesser" formats incorporated in their specs.) Plus, I've bought 62 of them and had only 1 out-of-box failure (3% is the industry standard). Here's a very unusual application of RAID-1: In general, RAID is best left to a hardware controller with the "smarts" (read: "intelligent" co-processor) to handle the RAID data encoding on its own. This isn't because the system's main processor, in conjunction with the ICH9R (or other South Bridge controller with RAID capabilities encoded), is incapable of doing the job; rather, it is because all RAID formats save one are tied to their instruction encoding and CRC instruction sets -- break the set and you're in a lot of trouble. RAID-0 is an accident waiting to happen (and it will). RAID-5 (and RAID-6) is (are) wonderful -- in a server or workstation with a dedicated hardware controller and 8 (yes, I said EIGHT) drives (although the RAID data is written across all drives, for simplicity's sake, effectively, 6 drives for data, 1 for the RAID encoding, and either a hot spare (for RAID-5) or a 2nd RAID encoding drive (for RAID-6)). Fewer drives is wasting space, more is wasting efficiency. That leaves RAID-1. RAID-1 is an amazing thing. It is the ONLY version of the various RAID schemes which leaves the data totally unaltered on the drive. That means, should the array fail, you can take a drive to ANY machine capable of reading that particular hardware and read the data. Never mind RAID or no RAID. Which leads us to this: Build a computer with one (or two) drives internally and an easy method of connecting one (or two) drives mounted externally (or, more preferably, mounted in a mobile rack or drive cage at the front of your computer chassis) to the INTERNAL drive connection(s). (For one-pair drive system, OS, applications & data would be installed on a single RAID-1 drive pair; for a two-pair drive system, OS & applications would be on one RAID-1 drive pair and all data would be on the second RAID-1 drive pair.) Next, buy THREE drives (or, in the case of a two drive pair system, SIX drives). NOTE: You CANNOT use a USB or firewire drive for this function. The external drive must be connected to the same internal drive controller that connects to its internally mounted mate. And, while eSata will work, a drive cage is a better (and less expensive) choice. See: Kingwin KF-1000, [ invalid url ]) Edited by - GaySatyr on 11/6/2007 9:05:14 PM
Thanks for all your great suggestions. I'm seeing my local computer guy I use for repairs next week and get his thoughts as well, esp. on building my own.
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Nov 6 2007 : 11:44PM
If you are getting advice on building your own try to make a list of your current hardware. I think many people underestimate the value of cannibalizing older computers. Whenever I find one of the residents of my building throwing away a computer I get out the screwdriver. Now I have a small stack of firewire cards, various models of sound cards, a few hard drives that I have never bothered plugging in. Several DVD drives. You probably get my point. Of your current hardware there is probably some stuff that is not obsolete. You never mentioned if you were retiring your current machine or using it for something. If you currently have an OS that you like you can save money and just install it on the new machine if you don't plan on using the old on. For a home desk top I wouldn't bother with a RAID array and would just opt for more drive space. But I have never had a drive fail either.
Well I will be also be buying a new computer after March 2008 after the new models come out! Because of the ipod and iphone; I thinking of buying a MAC! I strongly thinking about a notebook. But $2K is like wow! to much! I may just buy a gaming computer; since I want to play the new Call To Duty 4: Modern Warfare that just came out! I not sure but if you buy a gaming computer; you can do almost anything else with it because it so powerful. AMD just came out with a streaming process CPU for graphics computation. It equal to a supercomputer for only $2K available in 2008. It only like 20 times faster then any PC right now! That because it uses dual processing where their is one special CPU designed for graphics and a regular CPU for computations. It design for scientist!
2 grand is way too much for a laptop/notebook computer. I wouldn't bother with an overpriced laptop unless you actually need the portability. If you're just gonna sit around in the same spot with it all the time anyway, why not get a desktop? Maybe you could buy a used laptop for cheap somewhere if you really want the option of portability.
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Nov 8 2007 : 2:43PM
Hey HarryWild. Want to provide some links about this new computer that plays games and is designed for scientists? My searching yielded no results. 2k is not absurd to spend on a new desktop computer especially if it is tweaked out for gaming. EDIT: My computer, which I build 2 summers ago ran around 2100 bucks Canadian for all the parts. Granted, I probably should have shopped around more but I really wanted to play Oblivion... Edited by - conquistador on 11/8/2007 2:44:40 PM
It's AMD/ATI's FireStream 9170 -- a graphics co-processing engine designed for things like weather prediction and near-earth-collision orbit tracking -- it provides, among other things, 500 Gigaflops of double-precision floating-point computational power in a single, double-wide (because of cooling) with 2GB GDDR3 memory. Multiple units can be ganged in the same computer (if your chipset can support them - requires PCIe/16 v2.0 for every card). All for only $2K per unit. It is decidedly NOT a gaming graphics card. ~ GaySatyr (ABB)
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Nov 8 2007 : 3:06PM
I suspected as much. No existing game could possibly be designed to make use of the majority of that power. That stuff is for some heavy number crunching. Not gaming.
GS -- Would it make sense to use two internal drives in RAID 0 to create a logical system drive, coupled with two internal drives in RAID 1 to create a logical data drive? Speed for one, security for the other? If I did this, I would further back up the data and PST files on a daily basis to an external hard drive. In addition, I have a back-up computer (older but functional) onto which I can immediately load the data in the event that the RAID 0 system drive craps out. Do you think such a configuration would yield meaningful performance benefits while preserving a reasonable level of data security?
Regarding motherboards, the ASUS P5K-E looks on the surface like a good, medium-priced option for a P35 chipset. Any views on its features and likely performance in relation to its cost?
Theoretically, RAID-0 gives you lots of speed increases; however, effectively, the only real increase is in sustained reads. Considering that if either drive fails, the entire array is lost and must be rebuilt from the ground up (or restored onto a new RAID-0 pair), I just don't bother. To get "real" speed increases from RAID-0, you need a dedicated controller and 3 physical drives, minimum. It's just not worth the expense or the risk. If you want to put together a machine optimized for speed, 4 physical drives is still the ideal number; however, the arrangement is not what you'd expect and the 4th drive might best be a dedicated RAM drive. Stick the OS and all applications on a single, fast drive, for example, one of the WD Raptors. Move the Windows page file, temporary files, & IE or Firefox caches to a second fast hard drive or a dedicated RAM drive like the Gigabyte iRAM (7GB DDR1 PC3200, max - Gigabyte specs 4GB, max; however, only the 1st RAM position needs to be 1GB or smaller; the other 3 can be 2GB sticks). Use this "cache" drive for things like the temporary files produced by applications such as Adobe Premier and PhotoShop, too. Then use the RAID-1 trick for your data. The Asus P5K-E is an excellent board, about equally OC-able as the similar DS3P Gigabyte model. The audio processor on the Asus is superior by a small margin to the one on the Gigabyte model; but if you are into HT/Audiophile apps or gaming, you are going to use a real sound card anyway (M-Audio for the former, Creative SoundBlaster for the latter). Asus dedicates two of its SATA ports for eSATA use, something it touts as a feature; whereas Gigabyte leaves all 8 SATA ports as internal connections and gives you a special connector for two of them, complete with power access, that can be slot mounted. I prefer Gigabyte's approach. In terms of quality, there is no difference. The wildest, speed-demon machine I've ever built was for a wedding photographer who has a large celebrity business. In a single chassis, it has 12 physical hard drives and two RAM drives operating simultaneously (plus a number of extra hard drives as backup spares):
C: -- Op/Sys & Apps, 1 WD 150GB Raptor
D: -- Data (current, working), RAID-1 array, 2 Seagate 750GB, one mounted in a front bay cage for backup cycling with 2 spares
E: -- an additional, single data drive front-bay mounted in a hot-swap cage for general backup or data transfer purposes, 1 Hitachi 1TB
O: -- a 1GB dedicated Gigabyte iRAM drive for OS caching
Q: -- a 7GB dedicated Gigabyte iRAM drive for PhotoShop swap files
R:, S: & T: -- Mass storage, RAID-5 array, 8 Hitachi 1TB, 7 active + 1 hot spare, effectively 6 terabytes storage in three 2TB volumes; uses a 3ware dedicated controller
I doubt service is much different between Dell and HP - it's either Tom in Bangladesh or Joe in Bombay. Keep in mind the economics of these things: if they ever touch a machine after shipping it they'll loose a lot of money on that sale, and even calling them on the phone can do it after 2-3 calls. What other priorities such as size, noise, price, etc? What about a Mac mini? All-in-one, simple, nothing to go wrong by opening it up, does what you need. Or an iMac? It doesn't get simpler to get running than this. Forget Lightscribe - it sucks. Get a cheap Epson printer than can print to inkjet-printable CDs and use those. Much faster, looks better, discs are cheaper and you get a color/photo printer too. Intel vs. AMD is a moot point here. Nothing he says implies he'd be able to tell the difference - any recent speed of either is way faster than needed. I don't recommend RAID. RAID is a way of guaranteeing that bad data is available. You need a backup scheme instead of RAID (repeat after me: RAID is for data availability; backup is for data recovery; the two goals are not related). For a Mac that's Time Machine or for Windows buy Acronis True Image. Splurge on an external drive, big (3-4 times as big as the system disk) and keep backups there in either case - never keep data and backups on the same spindle. Make sure the True Image boot CD can read from that backup drive and the system drive. Microsoft Vista is not desired over XP for experienced users but the weirdness may not bother someone who isn't heavily familiar with Windows. “Home” edition lacks the “Remote Desktop” server feature but that won't matter to you. From what BB says I cannot imagine that building a system makes sense for him. Buy the slowest CPU currently sold - they're all far faster than the needs you list. You don't seem to need to spend money on a video card either. Prioritize: backup disk & software, system RAM, ... that's about it. A faster Raptor might shave a couple of seconds off Window's boot - not worth it. Everything changes if you want a gaming system, or do video editing (transcoding) etc.
jrv's generally right: RAID systems were developed to provide data rapidly and reliably. They weren't conceived as backup systems. And certainly, neither RAID-5 nor RAID-6 should ever be considered as reasonable substitutes for a backup regimen, even with their ability to rebuild a failed drive automatically. However, because RAID-1 leaves your data unchanged on a single drive pair RAID-1 array, it can be used as an ad hock backup system -- especially these days when hard drive costs are significantly less expensive than traditional media backup systems that have any hope of storing the sheer volume of data.
Simply mount one drive of the RAID-1 pair permanently inside the computer and the other drive in a removable drive rack or cage accessible from the front of your computer chassis.
Then get two extra drives -- four in all.
Build the array normally, using two of the drives.
After it's built, deliberately remove the accessible drive, breaking the array; and insert one of the spare drives, allowing the computer to re-build the array with the replacement drive.
The drive you removed is, essentially, a perfect 1st generation backup.
Now work a while, adding and changing data for a week and repeat the process, removing the currently accessible drive and replacing it with the 2nd spare -- you have a perfect 2nd generation backup in the drive you removed.
After another week, do the exchange again, using the accessible drive you originally used to build the array.
Continue the drive rotation, always inserting the oldest of the three accessible drives and storing the two spares as your backups, one always current and the other a week older.
Obviously, if you wanted, you could increase the number of spare drives and keep more generations of backups if you feel the need for the extra security.
And, as a precaution, replace all four drives after 3-to-4 years of use -- the internally mounted one because of its age, having been run 24/7/365, and the external ones because of the additional wear and tear of handling -- your data being worth a lot more than the cost of four new drives.
I've been using this unorthodox application of RAID-1 as a backup system for about ten years, now -- both for myself and for the people for whom I've build computers where they've wanted a simple backup procedure. So far, no one has ever lost data -- at least, not that they've complained to me (and I think they would have - vociferously). There HAVE been a number of cases of drive failures over that period; but my bastardized RAID-1 backup system has always worked. ~ GaySatyr (ABB) Edited to add: This is a backup system -- not an archive system. It is not a replacement for a well-ordered archive of important current and historical data which should be copied to [relatively] permanent media, preferably in triplicate, and stored off-site in at least two different locations, such, that if one is lost, the other(s) is(are) still accessible. Plus, the archive should be updated/renewed/replaced periodically -- certainly at least every decade -- lest the permanent media deteriorate or become dated to the point of obsolescence. Edited by - GaySatyr on 11/10/2007 9:31:06 PM
jrv's also right about the use of WD Raptors and dedicated cache drives being a generally unreasonable added expense. Their effect is typically very small except in a few applications: A four-drive RAID-0 does wonders for gamers who need the extra read speed to load massive game environmental data at insane frame rates using astronomically expensive, top-of-the-line graphics cards in SLI configurations. Then there are the people using Adobe's (and other) high-end graphics applications for photo and video editing and transcoding. There are also certain engineering and scientific applications where it makes sense to take advantage of every possible trick to speed the result. For a general purpose, home, SOHO or business computer, these techniques make no sense whatsoever, neither for their added complexity nor their added expense. ~ GaySatyr (ABB)
The problem with this scheme is that it relies on a human to do something. But humans are by far the least reliable part of any backup scheme - if you try to calculate the odds of system failure, introducing a human kills reliability. Moreover, this gets you very few checkpoints to go back to, and introduces handling issues. (the sATA connectors have a much better lifetime insertion rating than IDE but it's still likely rated into the many dozens, maybe a few hundred) Something like Acronis True Image or Norton Ghost can make a new check point daily or even hourly with no human involvement, and it's practical to keep around a month or more of these checkpoints. (Norton Ghost depends on .Net and is not preferred, and Acronis does a better job of keeping their boot disk up-to-date for bare-metal restores) One does often see backup and availability addressed at the same time: for example my backup storage is RAID-5 to ensure the backups are available to read and write, but the individual systems are not RAID just backed up. Hard disks can be run continuously without harming reliability. Indeed it's better to leave them running rather than cycle them from a reliability standpoint. It's mainly handling and power supply issues that kill them, or heat.
