Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: 80G vs 2x40G

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Tor-NY-BJ
    Posts
    330

    80G vs 2x40G

    Which is a better configuration?
    IDE:
    80G as whole or 2x40G?

    Can 2 drives open 2 connections or IDE limits only 1 connection regardless to which drive?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    1,320
    Depends on what you want to use your server for...
    2x40GB is great if you want to backup; 80GB if you are looking for more space.

    If both drives have their own IDE channel (Depends on config), you will be able to write to both drives at the same time. (133MB/sec per drive)
    If they are connected tot he same channel, you will have to share the bandwidth. (133MB/sec total)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,029
    I will go with 2x40 - if one drive crashed - at least you can have something...

  4. #4
    raid 1... if possible. Much faster reads, and a full backup. that means 2x40gb by the way.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    75
    Originally posted by Cserver
    raid 1... if possible. Much faster reads, and a full backup. that means 2x40gb by the way.
    This also means you only get 40GB of usable space. =]
    "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." - Albert Einstein

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Goleta, CA
    Posts
    5,550
    I've filled up a terabyte of space. At least harddrives are dropping in price.
    Patron: I'd like my free lunch please.
    Cafe Manager: Free lunch? Did you read the fine print stating it was an April Fool's joke.
    Patron: I read the same way I listen, I ignore the parts I don't agree with. I'm suing you for false advertising.
    Cafe Owner: Is our lawyer still working pro bono?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Tor-NY-BJ
    Posts
    330
    Originally posted by Cserver
    raid 1... if possible. Much faster reads, and a full backup. that means 2x40gb by the way.
    I don't need a lot of space. I wonder if I can do soft Raid 1 on 2 IDEs. By the way, if an IDE failed, will I have to pay for a new replacement or it is covered by the dedicated server plan in general?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40
    Originally posted by qllonceagain
    I don't need a lot of space. I wonder if I can do soft Raid 1 on 2 IDEs. By the way, if an IDE failed, will I have to pay for a new replacement or it is covered by the dedicated server plan in general?
    Why would you have to pay for their broken hardware?

  9. #9
    I would personally go with the 2x40gb if your disk usage is not very high. The way I have it set is that the primary drive would be the working drive and the secondary one set up as a backup drive which would store daily backups. So if the main drive goes down or someone deletes something which they are not supposed to, I could retrieve the file from the backup.

    Local backup is great because it gives you that extra sense of security and it forms one part in your whole backup solution to be used with a remote backup solution.

    To qllonceagain >> There is no reason to pay for harddisk replacement if you are on a dedicated server plan since the datacenter own the hardware they are responsible for its replacement. You are only responsible for it if you colocate as it is your hardware.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    617
    i would suggest go for 2x40G.
    your whole 80 G will be gone if the hard disk failed.

    with two disks, you can utilitse the second disk as backup if the primary drive failed.

    Backup is really a top priority for any computer users.
    Linux System admin (since 2001)
    * cPanel/WHM, Directadmin, Apache, DNS, PHP, HyperVM, Lxadmin, Openvz*

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    1,320
    Originally posted by Cserver
    raid 1... if possible. Much faster reads, and a full backup. that means 2x40gb by the way.
    Raid-1 does not mean faster reads. Raid-0 does, but that is probably not what the topicstarter is looking for.

  12. #12
    Originally posted by Siet
    Raid-1 does not mean faster reads. Raid-0 does, but that is probably not what the topicstarter is looking for.
    http://www.acnc.com/04_01_01.html

    Cheers.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •