Nagered hard drive;'(..
in [Computer]
|
From: Roland Perry on 25 Jun 2010 10:10 In message <88jn89FnfdU2(a)mid.individual.net>, at 12:54:33 on Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Huge <Huge(a)nowhere.much.invalid> remarked: >It's a head-per-track disk. But I suppose >you could argue it's functionally the same as a drum. No-one is denying that. But it looks like a platter (with a lot of fixed heads), not a drum. If you aren't careful, I'll start talking about delay-line memory ;-) -- Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 25 Jun 2010 10:11 In message <9503a2f5-46bc-4074-a03c-3595216be198(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, at 02:48:57 on Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Andy Dingley <dingbat(a)codesmiths.com> remarked: >> I remember drives that were sensitve to changes in orientation. .... >As always, it turned out to be thermal. Correct - that's all it is. -- Roland Perry
From: Mike Tomlinson on 25 Jun 2010 10:32 In article <3e31f342-f21c-4a15-800c-68537742e350(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroup s.com>, Andy Dingley <dingbat(a)codesmiths.com> writes >RAID has _never_ synchronised heads or spindles. I'm not so sure. I know I have seen SCSI drives with a sync out pin, and am fairly sure I have seen RAID setups where those were all connected to synchronise the drives. This would have been 15 or so years ago though. -- Mike Tomlinson
From: Mike Tomlinson on 25 Jun 2010 10:35 In article <b62107e6-233d-40c4-b17a-1a2f954eed02(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroup s.com>, Andy Dingley <dingbat(a)codesmiths.com> writes >A little later, and you're reduced to skip-diving to get the legacy >parts for it, whilst storage of similar size and performance is >sellign for tuppence ha'penny down the road at PC World. The answer to that is to lay in spare parts at the same time as the order for the RAID unit. Yes, it increases the initial cost, but at least you know you have the spares available in five years' time. -- Mike Tomlinson
From: Roland Perry on 25 Jun 2010 11:02
In message <G$7Z40CA7LJMFwQ6(a)none.invalid>, at 15:35:44 on Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Mike Tomlinson <mike(a)jasper.org.uk> remarked: >>A little later, and you're reduced to skip-diving to get the legacy >>parts for it, whilst storage of similar size and performance is >>sellign for tuppence ha'penny down the road at PC World. > >The answer to that is to lay in spare parts at the same time as the >order for the RAID unit. Yes, it increases the initial cost, but at >least you know you have the spares available in five years' time. The best RAID controllers build that in - they have one or two spare drives configured in, that don't initially store any data, but can be swapped in when needed. -- Roland Perry |